Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...1516171819...30
ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored this is.

*deep cleansing breath*

ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?

Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers

i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes? confused
/end vent


Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

Delete Topic

Mint Sauce
veteran
Location: Lancs England
Member Since: 7th Sep 2003
Total posts: 1453
Posted:a news story dose not represent a sientific paper

before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Mojojo

Do those rubiks cube numbers take into account the possibility that children peel the stickers off and switch them around? I know I used too.


I had to do them in my head, but they were fairly close. It appears I missed a few powers of 2 (rookie error) and I neglected the physical strucuture which renders only 1 in 12 of the the positions reachable, but luckily these almost canceled out meaning my answer was only out by a factor of 2 or so. biggrin
Written by: Patriarch917
People with better math skills than jeff(fake)...


Such people do not exist.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
Perhaps the better term is Athiesm: faith that there is no god. I dislike the term (since it seems too much like an insult) but it is probably a better one.


Atheism means the absence of belief in God, not belief in the absence of God.

"Atheism is as much a religion as bald is a hair colour."

Written by: Patriarch917

As far as the soft tissue in the buried t-rex...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm



Real men use peer review.
Written by: Mint Sauce
a news story does not represent a scientific paper


ditto


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)

Written by: Mojojo


Do those rubiks cube numbers take into account the possibility that children peel the stickers off and switch them around? I know I used too.


I had to do them in my head, but they were fairly close. It appears I missed a few powers of 2 (rookie error) and I neglected the physical strucuture which renders only 1 in 12 of the the positions reachable, but luckily these almost canceled out meaning my answer was only out by a factor of 2 or so. biggrin
Written by: Patriarch917

People with better math skills than jeff(fake)...


Such people do not exist.



Your math is still incorrect jeff. Try looking at some peer reviewed web sites such as the one that I posted, wikipedia, or the official Rubik's cube page.

The wikipedia article actually does take into account the possibility taking apart and putting back together of the cube.


Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:The maths doesn't matter, it's the point that matters.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)


Atheism means the absence of belief in God, not belief in the absence of God.




Actually, the word can mean both.

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Source: WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University


See, this is what I said would be boring.


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Ok Patriarch917, the thing you miss with the probability is the genetics, and the Mendelian inheritance. The it gets more complex because Mendel fudged thing a bit.

So perhaps you can now see that evolution is not a theory. On the other hand, there are no scientific articles to read on creationism because creationism and belief in higher beings is just superstition.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917

Written by: jeff(fake)

Do those rubiks cube numbers take into account the possibility that children peel the stickers off and switch them around? I know I used too.


I had to do them in my head, but they were fairly close. It appears I missed a few powers of 2 (rookie error) and I neglected the physical strucuture which renders only 1 in 12 of the the positions reachable, but luckily these almost canceled out meaning my answer was only out by a factor of 2 or so. biggrin


Written by: Patriarch917

Your math is still incorrect jeff...


A)D'uh, that's what I was talking about in my post.
B)Oh No! I can't do large factorials and exponentials in my head without making a few minor errors. Evolution falls apart, cats and dog living with each other, it's all over!!!!

Silly man. The post was demonstrating that the problem can be broken down into far simpler parts. rolleyes
Written by: Patriarch917

Written by: Jeff(fake)
Atheism means the absence of belief in God, not belief in the absence of God.


Actually, the word can mean both.


Perhaps, but you were using it to just mean the belief in absence which I don't hold and I suspect very few people do either. I know that actively distorting the facts is acceptable in creationist circles but try to limit it here.
Written by: stone
So perhaps you can now see that evolution is not a theory.


Sorry Stone, but you are wrong on this. Evolution is a theory. It is also right. ID isn't a theory and is also wrong.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Written by:
Evolution is a theory. It is also right. ID isn't a theory and is also wrong.



nonononono

Evolution is a theory. It is highly probable that evolution (though not in its NeoDarwinist form) is responsible for life on Earth based on the evidence currently available.

ID is theory. It is highly improbable that an intelligent designer is responsible for life on Earth based on the evidence currently available.

Right and wrong are absolutes. Scientific theories are not absolutes.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:IMHO ID is not a scientific theory:



Written by: wikipedia




theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method).





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
br>


You are however correct about right and wrong - Jeff, I'm amazed you said that...

EDITED_BY: Sym (1141734687)


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Written by:
As far as the soft tissue in the buried t-rex...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm




Dude... read the article carefully

Written by:
Dinosaur experts have extracted samples of what appear to be soft tissues from a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil bone.

The US researchers tell Science magazine that the organic components resemble cells and fine blood vessels.



notice the words APPEAR and RESEMBLE

and then the killer passage

Written by:
Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance.



which still leaves AiG as the only people actually supporting your claim.

Just because a sensationalist headline on a news site appears to support your argument gives it little credibility. Especially when the actual article makes it quite clear that it is only a superficial appearance which has NOT been confirmed by any sort of research.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: dream




Written by:




Evolution is a theory. It is also right. ID isn't a theory and is also wrong.



Evolution is a theory. It is highly probable that evolution (though not in its NeoDarwinist form) is responsible for life on Earth based on the evidence currently available.



Your opinion on NeoDarwinism goes against the scientific consensus and you've provided no evidence for it (bearing in mind that endosymbiosis theory doesn't conflict with NeoDarwinism).



I'm not getting at you here, just saying that NeoDarwinism is probably correct.

Written by: dream




ID is theory. It is highly improbable that an intelligent designer is responsible for life on Earth based on the evidence currently available.



Right and wrong are absolutes. Scientific theories are not absolutes.



Written by: Sym
You are however correct about right and wrong - Jeff, I'm amazed you said that...



Quite right, to a certain definition wink When I say right and wrong I mean that they are so probable or so improbable that you have to be ignorant, stupid, or insane to disagree with them. Whilst the sun in fact might not rise tomorrow, it's unnessacary to add that little proviso onto the end and so we just say that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's the same with saying that evolution did happen and that the Earth is six billion years old.



ID however doesn't count as a theory as it is religiously based and thus unfallsifiable.



So all in all it was just a matter of semantics. hug

In future just add that little proviso onto the end in your minds when I say right or wrong. wink


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Domino
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Member Since: 26th May 2004
Total posts: 757
Posted:Jeff, you're an arrogant [censored] and very good at what you do, I salute you! ubblol




Slight edit - that may sound unpleasant, it's not meant to be ubbrollsmile


Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:ubblol

ditto


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Written by:
D however doesn't count as a theory as it is religiously based and thus unfallsifiable.



Again its a case of semantics... ID isn't a scientific theory. However not all theories are scientific. Theological beliefs at the end of the day are just theories.

We've already had the neo/post darwinism debate... We aren't going to agree, but endosymbiosis is an important evolutionary process which isn't part of neodarwinism. It was hotly contested, until proved, and the neodarwinists were wrong about it. Thus the central tenet of neodarwinism - that evolution happened soley because of random mutation and mendelian inheritance is not true. While those processes are undoubtedly crucial, there are others which have also played a vital role in the evolutionary process.

Now if your argument is that having been proved wrong, neodarwinist orthodoxy has changed to accomodate other evolutionary processes besides mendelian inheritence and random mutation (such as endosymbiosis horizontal gene transfer and coevolutionary strategies) then we probbly agree, but choose to use different taxonomies.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Written by:
Jeff, you're an arrogant censored and very good at what you do, I salute you!





Yep... But its the arrogance that makes him so endearing and so much fun to argue with

hug


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:You know every single time I post I usually regret it about an hour or so later and then I'm afraid to look at HoP again for about half a day. I can have fairly wild and random mood swings which result in some of my more regretable posts but I do try to be nice in my own way. I'm working on the arrogance, I really am, but in the mean time I have to get by just by being right.

I like to argue with you guys too. hug

*damnit, manly tears Jeff, manly tears* ubbcrying


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:hug Jeff, despite the wording of some of your posts, I think you add a lot to HoP and this forum. Don't stop posting, keep up the good work biggrin

admitting the problem is half way to solving it nana

grouphug


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:For sure you guys know a lot more about genetics than I do, so bear with me.



So dream, how is symbiosis, as in rhizobia bacteria, not a part of evolution? I would have thought both organisms evolved the relationship together.



I always thought horizontal gene transfer meant multi-gene resistance, but I had a quick read. Is this the process where organisms genetically modified naturally?



Im not going to even ask what a coevolutionary strategy is.





Year right Jeff(fake), at least two labs have mapped the human gnome and you still think it's a theory wink


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Written by:
how is symbiosis, as in rhizobia bacteria, not a part of evolution?



please try a bit harder to read what has been written. what i said was

Written by:
endosymbiosis is an important evolutionary process



He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:ThanX.

If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:I though people might be interested in these.

List of scientists who are creationists. (from answers in genesis)

Scientists named Steve (or derivatives of Steve) who accept evolution. (from the National Centre for Science Education)

One list is almost four times longer than the other. Guess which. wink


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:ubblol



*looks again*



Wait a minute...out of 105 people on the list, OVER HALF ARE BEFORE DARWIN! Yes, 56 out of 105 are before Darwin, 32 are just after Darwin (I would like to see a list of the followers of any other theory in the years after it's publication) and only 17 are in the modern time. Out of those 17, only 4 are alive today.



Hang on a sec, I'm going to make a list of people who don't follow string theory, going back to the 1600s. That'll show it's wrong!



ubblol



update - oops, I was looking at the wrong list redface

EDITED_BY: Sym (1141996790)


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Ok, this is something I'm going to watch:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm
br>
It sounds alright at the moment, but pro-ID teachers might now by allowed to talk about it in science class.

Thoughts?


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Mint Sauce
veteran
Location: Lancs England
Member Since: 7th Sep 2003
Total posts: 1453
Posted:Hummm Ive just had a revelation and total change of opinion eek

eek eek eek eek

I now think that Creationism and ID should be taught within science classes

eek eek eek eek

(Shock Horror)



Wait hear me out but not in the way you would most readily think. biggrin



I think an important part of basic science education is not only understanding scientific principals & theories but understanding how these principals & theorys where brought into modern thinking.



In other words teaching a full understanding of the scientific method. How principals & theorys are first theorized, how they are developed over time to fit with experimentation and observation evidence. How they can be either strengthened or disproved and eventually even abandoned as false theorys and so forth.



Like how it is now fully accepted that gravity (in Newtons teaching) is now a defunct theory being replaced with Einsteins relativity theories.

Or even simpler that the earth is round not flat (well sort of round'ish wink)



But an important part of this should also include how some theorys can be proposed for reasons other than purely scientific understanding. With political and/or religious influences and how they can be spread and even gain credibility within some organisations (school boards redface).



And a great example of this is how ID is trying to wedge itself into modern teaching without the proper scientific backing it needs to be taken seriously as a scientific theory and how if you look behind the pseudo science you will find big holes in even basic understanding of other areas of science in an attempt to make it sound plausible.



I think it is important to teach our future scientists to never take anything at face value always look behind the theory and look at how they developed over time and the previous scientific background that they are based on and does it all fit and if not why not.



smile


before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:That's basically why I will teach my children about Evolution. In order to understand what to believe, it helps to understand what others believe, even if you may end up disagreeing with them.

Even though the old versions of evolutions are losing their credibility both in science and in public opinion, their influence should be understood. I think the folks in the BBC article are on the right track, teaching children how the same evidence has been interpreted different ways based on the beliefs of the interpreters. If you truly believe that your theory is correct, you should not be scared to also teach other theories.


Delete

Mint Sauce
veteran
Location: Lancs England
Member Since: 7th Sep 2003
Total posts: 1453
Posted:"old versions of evolutions are losing their credibility"

with who exactly????

certanly not within the sientific community.


before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:The old idea about evolution being a slow, gradual process has been changed, and is changing, toward rapid evolution where new traits arise in a few generation (such as the bat wing example).

When they say that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, they mean that they don't point to any three animals and say with that the one in the middle was "between" the other two. Instead, the fossil record turns up animals that are generally thought to be evolutionary dead ends (except for the one like the "rat squirrel" that turn out to still be alive after supposedly being extinct for 11 million years). The reason for the lack of evidence for thousands of generations of transitional forms is now thought to be because perhaps there weren't thousands of generations. We went from rats to bats in a few steps at most. Thousands of gradually large and larger flaps between fingers is not a reasonable explanation. They must have made the leap from walking to gliding (at least) in a generation or two.



New fossil discoveries keep pushing back and blurring together the lines. 15 years ago, the textbooks said that the only mammals that lived with dinosaurs were shrew sized, and that only after the dinosaurs died did mammals start to advance. Several recent discoveries show that big mammals lived with, swam with, and ate dinosaurs.

The theory we call "evolution" is constantly evolving. This is not an insult to evolutionists or to science in general. Science should change when new evidence is found. Human knowledge is imperfect, and we should not hold onto any particular human idea as being "The Truth."

This is no slam against evolution. Creation science is also changing rapidly. I can name a handful of ideas off the top of my head that turned out to be wrong (such a gravitational collapse of the sun, and moon dust). The discovery of plant pollen in Precambrian strata or soft tissue of a t-rex does not destroy evolution, but only changes it. So also, the discovery of ideas that challenge theories built around creationism have not destroyed it.

Old theories are disposed of in favor of new ones, in all sciences. I did not mean to suggest that evolution in general is being rejected. What I meant was what I said: old versions of evolution are losing their credibility both in science and in public opinion.


Delete

Mint Sauce
veteran
Location: Lancs England
Member Since: 7th Sep 2003
Total posts: 1453
Posted:that is called an evolving theory (te he sorry couldnt resist the word play) the more they find the more it confirms the original postulations or alters perception slightly.



There are many many arguments within evolutionary circles as with any topic but all the serious arguments still hold fast to the basic principals of evolution.


before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917

They must have made the leap from walking to gliding (at least) in a generation or two.




This actually made my jaw drop.


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Page: 1...1516171819...30

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [intelligent design v* evolution] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
2. Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [874 replies]
3. Forums > need your help/opinion [14 replies]
4. Forums > Burning Man 09' Evolution [17 replies]
5. Forums > 5/19 The Next Evolution Sideshow

     Show more..