- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution
Login/Join to Participate
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how
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?
/end vent
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how
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?
/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
Posted:actualy evolotion is complete rubbish cuz it dosnt explain what created us because there is a certain protien made by DNA which makes DNA but need other DNA to make DNA this is because DNA is made by somthing called semi consurvitive replication and requires at least half a DNA strand to produce another. Therefore god must of placed both half a dna strand and the protien on the planet to create life. Any sensible a level biologist will tell u that see well anyone who went beaufort will
he he i am mike the amazing gloscircus person who is mike.
Officaly an exception to the Poi Boys are Girls Thing
Posted: Written by: MikefromGlos
Therefore god must of placed both half a dna strand and the protien on the planet to create life.
I don't actually know what you're talking about, but:
a) I don't think it's true, can you provide some links to papers on it, or a wikipedia page?
b) Just because at this point science can't explain something doesn't then mean that 'god' did it. It is a bad argument taht people use a lot.
Therefore god must of placed both half a dna strand and the protien on the planet to create life.
I don't actually know what you're talking about, but:
a) I don't think it's true, can you provide some links to papers on it, or a wikipedia page?
b) Just because at this point science can't explain something doesn't then mean that 'god' did it. It is a bad argument taht people use a lot.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
DeletePosted:i will have to look the stuff up again in textbooks and find the name of the protien but the same thing is true of ribosomes dna is needed to make them yet they go in the process of making dna.....
As to point b i use the word god as a lack of a better word because there is no word for what ever created us yet as we dont know what it is
As to point b i use the word god as a lack of a better word because there is no word for what ever created us yet as we dont know what it is
he he i am mike the amazing gloscircus person who is mike.
Officaly an exception to the Poi Boys are Girls Thing
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:You don't know what he's talking about, but you don't think it's true? 
I know what you mean, but it's still funny. ;-)
Sounds like Mike is simply advancing an argument against abiogenisis, saying that one cannot make DNA without something that only DNA can make.
This sounds like a "chicken and egg" problem, but it is not a criticism of evolution. Both those that believe in evolution, and those that believe in ID both agree that currently, one needs a chicken to get an egg, and an egg to get a chicken. Similarly, they might both agree (if it is in fact true) that one needs a certain protien to get DNA, and one needs DNA to make that protien.
The abiogenisis reply is that the first DNA molecule formed by chance out of nonliving material, happened to have encoded in it the description of a cell that could live in that environment, and somehow ended up inside a living cell so that life could begin. ID suggests essentially the same process, but theorizes an intelligent outside source that did the arranging of the parts and encoding of the information in the DNA.
In other words, none of us think that chicken and egg relationships existed infinitely into the past. We agree that at one point, there was neither a chicken nor an egg that the chicken could have come from. Some of us simply choose to have faith in the idea that random events could have gotten this cycle started, while others believe that intelligent input was involved.
Science can verify that eggs are comming from chickens, and that chickens are comming from eggs. It cannot (at the moment) let us observe how the first one was made. Some sciences, such as mathematics, allow us to put odds on the idea of a living organism arriving by chance. However, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that it didn't happen... it just means that it takes more blind faith to believe in it.
I know what you mean, but it's still funny. ;-)
Sounds like Mike is simply advancing an argument against abiogenisis, saying that one cannot make DNA without something that only DNA can make.
This sounds like a "chicken and egg" problem, but it is not a criticism of evolution. Both those that believe in evolution, and those that believe in ID both agree that currently, one needs a chicken to get an egg, and an egg to get a chicken. Similarly, they might both agree (if it is in fact true) that one needs a certain protien to get DNA, and one needs DNA to make that protien.
The abiogenisis reply is that the first DNA molecule formed by chance out of nonliving material, happened to have encoded in it the description of a cell that could live in that environment, and somehow ended up inside a living cell so that life could begin. ID suggests essentially the same process, but theorizes an intelligent outside source that did the arranging of the parts and encoding of the information in the DNA.
In other words, none of us think that chicken and egg relationships existed infinitely into the past. We agree that at one point, there was neither a chicken nor an egg that the chicken could have come from. Some of us simply choose to have faith in the idea that random events could have gotten this cycle started, while others believe that intelligent input was involved.
Science can verify that eggs are comming from chickens, and that chickens are comming from eggs. It cannot (at the moment) let us observe how the first one was made. Some sciences, such as mathematics, allow us to put odds on the idea of a living organism arriving by chance. However, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean that it didn't happen... it just means that it takes more blind faith to believe in it.
Delete
Posted:bingo
he he i am mike the amazing gloscircus person who is mike.
Officaly an exception to the Poi Boys are Girls Thing
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917
You don't know what he's talking about, but you don't think it's true?
Yep, I followed your lead on the rest of science
You don't know what he's talking about, but you don't think it's true?
Yep, I followed your lead on the rest of science
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Delete
Posted:Does that mean we can calculate the probability of God's existance and compare it to the probability of abiogenesis.?
My money's on a few random molecules bumping into each other and creating proteins that eventually bumped into other proteins, and stuck.
What's beaufort?
My money's on a few random molecules bumping into each other and creating proteins that eventually bumped into other proteins, and stuck.
What's beaufort?
Delete
Posted:Merely because we do not know the origin of the very first life form does not mean it is down to either pure chance or God/an Intelligent Designer.
There are hypotheses based on materials such as clay (rather ironically) which has the attribute that shapes and patterns in a layer are copied on the layer above and so on. Surely in an intense and chemically rich environment, eventually (and I do realise I'm going down the pure chance route) a chemical pattern that copies itself will occur.
Going off topic a little:
If the same amount of evidence existed for a Christian God as it did for Evolution, then I would believe. However, as I've just spent the past few months discussing the origin of religions with my mother and various lecturers, the chances of the Bible being the literal word of God are even less likely than me being a small rubber ball.
It's a book written by men for men, unless of course that God's word was designed to be translated from one language to another a couple of times, edited by a Government or 2, argued over and had the test of changed by a few reformations; in which case, he's doing a damn good job of testing his faithful!
There are hypotheses based on materials such as clay (rather ironically) which has the attribute that shapes and patterns in a layer are copied on the layer above and so on. Surely in an intense and chemically rich environment, eventually (and I do realise I'm going down the pure chance route) a chemical pattern that copies itself will occur.
Going off topic a little:
If the same amount of evidence existed for a Christian God as it did for Evolution, then I would believe. However, as I've just spent the past few months discussing the origin of religions with my mother and various lecturers, the chances of the Bible being the literal word of God are even less likely than me being a small rubber ball.
It's a book written by men for men, unless of course that God's word was designed to be translated from one language to another a couple of times, edited by a Government or 2, argued over and had the test of changed by a few reformations; in which case, he's doing a damn good job of testing his faithful!
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
DeletePosted:So we're still left waiting for how an A level student can show that evolution can't explain what created us when the wolds top intellectuals think it's the best theory we have.
DNA in its current form is no doubt something that cannon just happen 'by chance' and carry on remaking itself. However the whole point of evolution is that things change a very little bit over a very long time. Anyone who thinks that the world as we know it more or less happend in a day (or 6) would be called mad by most people who actually thought about it.
Sure, we don't know the exact way that the first self-replicators, but then you can't tell me the way that a cloud will form and move about, or a wave will break. Thats not to say that this can't happen though.
Maybe renaming 'God' 'random chance within statistically acceptable limits' would be a good idea, then I would be happy to say that god made us all. But not in 6 days.
DNA in its current form is no doubt something that cannon just happen 'by chance' and carry on remaking itself. However the whole point of evolution is that things change a very little bit over a very long time. Anyone who thinks that the world as we know it more or less happend in a day (or 6) would be called mad by most people who actually thought about it.
Sure, we don't know the exact way that the first self-replicators, but then you can't tell me the way that a cloud will form and move about, or a wave will break. Thats not to say that this can't happen though.
Maybe renaming 'God' 'random chance within statistically acceptable limits' would be a good idea, then I would be happy to say that god made us all. But not in 6 days.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
DeletePatriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: Sym
So we're still left waiting for how an A level student can show that evolution can't explain what created us when the wolds top intellectuals think it's the best theory we have.
Rubbish. All of the worlds top intellectuals think that ID is the best theory... otherwise they wouldnt be top intellectuals. ;-)
Written by: Sym
DNA in its current form is no doubt something that cannon just happen 'by chance' and carry on remaking itself. However the whole point of evolution is that things change a very little bit over a very long time.
Whether a book is written in a single day, or one letter a day for a very long time, doesnt change the odds of the book being written by chance. Besides, one DNA molecule being put together bit by bit over a long period of time wouldn't work. The new information must be added faster than the old information will get degraded. Random chance works both to create the new... and destroy the existing.
Written by: Sym
Anyone who thinks that the world as we know it more or less happend in a day (or 6) would be called mad by most people who actually thought about it.
There are people who believe that the parts needed to make the first life form could occur by chance at the same location, at the same time, and assemble themselves within the time period it would take for the component parts to decompose... yet we do not call them mad.
Written by: Sym
Sure, we don't know the exact way that the first self-replicators, but then you can't tell me the way that a cloud will form and move about, or a wave will break. Thats not to say that this can't happen though.
I cannot explain how a car could assemble itself by chance. However, I can explain how it could be assembled by someone else with the proper capacity. Favoring chance over design as the best explanation for certain phenomenon is a matter of faith that must be entertained despite the strength of the evidence... not because of it.
Written by: Sym
Maybe renaming 'God' 'random chance within statistically acceptable limits' would be a good idea, then I would be happy to say that god made us all. But not in 6 days.
Lets define our statistical limits, and put the random chance theory to the test.
If our null hypothesis is that life formed by random chance, at what statistical limit shall we reject it? At what point down a normal curve should we decide that there is evidence to suggest that a phenomenon cannot be explained by chance, but probably occurred because of non-random factors?
Such a discussion will quickly become technical, but I seem to recall that you and several others here are familiar enough with the math involved to be able to discuss it. Im taking a class on empirical methods at the moment. Weve done a lot of work lately testing whether things (such as a low number of minorities at a company) are due to random chance, or to design (such as racial discrimination). Quite a bit of our time has been devoted to agreeing on the statistically acceptable limits.
What do you think the statistically acceptable limits should be? If I propose to you that such-and-such happened because of chance, at what point will you reject that theory as in implausible, unsatisfactory explanation?
Stout has his money on the null hypothesis. Ill put mine on rejecting it. As soon as we can agree where to set the level of statistical significance, we can know who wins.
So we're still left waiting for how an A level student can show that evolution can't explain what created us when the wolds top intellectuals think it's the best theory we have.
Rubbish. All of the worlds top intellectuals think that ID is the best theory... otherwise they wouldnt be top intellectuals. ;-)
Written by: Sym
DNA in its current form is no doubt something that cannon just happen 'by chance' and carry on remaking itself. However the whole point of evolution is that things change a very little bit over a very long time.
Whether a book is written in a single day, or one letter a day for a very long time, doesnt change the odds of the book being written by chance. Besides, one DNA molecule being put together bit by bit over a long period of time wouldn't work. The new information must be added faster than the old information will get degraded. Random chance works both to create the new... and destroy the existing.
Written by: Sym
Anyone who thinks that the world as we know it more or less happend in a day (or 6) would be called mad by most people who actually thought about it.
There are people who believe that the parts needed to make the first life form could occur by chance at the same location, at the same time, and assemble themselves within the time period it would take for the component parts to decompose... yet we do not call them mad.
Written by: Sym
Sure, we don't know the exact way that the first self-replicators, but then you can't tell me the way that a cloud will form and move about, or a wave will break. Thats not to say that this can't happen though.
I cannot explain how a car could assemble itself by chance. However, I can explain how it could be assembled by someone else with the proper capacity. Favoring chance over design as the best explanation for certain phenomenon is a matter of faith that must be entertained despite the strength of the evidence... not because of it.
Written by: Sym
Maybe renaming 'God' 'random chance within statistically acceptable limits' would be a good idea, then I would be happy to say that god made us all. But not in 6 days.
Lets define our statistical limits, and put the random chance theory to the test.
If our null hypothesis is that life formed by random chance, at what statistical limit shall we reject it? At what point down a normal curve should we decide that there is evidence to suggest that a phenomenon cannot be explained by chance, but probably occurred because of non-random factors?
Such a discussion will quickly become technical, but I seem to recall that you and several others here are familiar enough with the math involved to be able to discuss it. Im taking a class on empirical methods at the moment. Weve done a lot of work lately testing whether things (such as a low number of minorities at a company) are due to random chance, or to design (such as racial discrimination). Quite a bit of our time has been devoted to agreeing on the statistically acceptable limits.
What do you think the statistically acceptable limits should be? If I propose to you that such-and-such happened because of chance, at what point will you reject that theory as in implausible, unsatisfactory explanation?
Stout has his money on the null hypothesis. Ill put mine on rejecting it. As soon as we can agree where to set the level of statistical significance, we can know who wins.
Delete
Posted:Also a school in gloucester which i go to which we argued the arguement i pointed out before it became well almost famous
he he i am mike the amazing gloscircus person who is mike.
Officaly an exception to the Poi Boys are Girls Thing
Posted:Pat, once again you come to the Blind Watchmaker argument, one which is 200 years old, has been brought up numerous times (with references) in this discussion, outdates Wallace and Darwin's writings and has had more shootings down than I care to number.
I'm no bio chemist, and I do not know how life started, but I'll put vast amounts of money, my soul, my life and what ever else you ask for on the side of God not creating us in 6 days, 6000 years ago.
Also, if intellectuals are putting themselves behind ID as a theory, they deserve to be shot, because ID is not a theory. It barely passes as a hypothesis! It's a wolf is sheep's clothing, religion masquerading as science.
I'm no bio chemist, and I do not know how life started, but I'll put vast amounts of money, my soul, my life and what ever else you ask for on the side of God not creating us in 6 days, 6000 years ago.
Also, if intellectuals are putting themselves behind ID as a theory, they deserve to be shot, because ID is not a theory. It barely passes as a hypothesis! It's a wolf is sheep's clothing, religion masquerading as science.
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
DeletePosted:prehaps the answer is to look inside oneself for the answer
he he i am mike the amazing gloscircus person who is mike.
Officaly an exception to the Poi Boys are Girls Thing
Posted:No.. it clearly isnt the answer 
Once you look inside yourself and have a poke around, you will shortly die from major blood loss.
Once you look inside yourself and have a poke around, you will shortly die from major blood loss.
Delete
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:the "where did dna come from" argument being persued here is indeed another instance of the watchmaker argument:
see something complex.
look for a way as to how it came about.
lack the evidence necessary to come up with a satisfactory explanation.
blame it on god.
we can apply the same (absence of) logical thought to a whole range of unexplained phenomena but it will never be a sound line of reason.
i.d. seems to herald the age old idea that phenomena that (as yet) lack a rational explanation (especially in terms of origin) are literal proof that god exists.
that is counter-intuitive to me - what happens when someone works out how self replicating dna molecules originated...?
oh, i know - we can just force them to recant, shut them in a house and ban all their publications
the buddhists have a much more sane approach imho - god exists in everything and if you can't see the buddha then you're the blind one
cole. x
see something complex.
look for a way as to how it came about.
lack the evidence necessary to come up with a satisfactory explanation.
blame it on god.
we can apply the same (absence of) logical thought to a whole range of unexplained phenomena but it will never be a sound line of reason.
i.d. seems to herald the age old idea that phenomena that (as yet) lack a rational explanation (especially in terms of origin) are literal proof that god exists.
that is counter-intuitive to me - what happens when someone works out how self replicating dna molecules originated...?
oh, i know - we can just force them to recant, shut them in a house and ban all their publications
the buddhists have a much more sane approach imho - god exists in everything and if you can't see the buddha then you're the blind one
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted:As someone who strongly believes in God, and strongly believes in evolution, I think that continuing this thread is stupid.
ok, God exists - however that's a belief and not a "fact".
Evolution is a fact.
Sorted
ok, God exists - however that's a belief and not a "fact".
Evolution is a fact.
Sorted
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
DeletePosted: Written by: coleman
the "where did dna come from" argument being persued here is indeed another instance of the blind watchmaker
Not wanting to be too much of a geek, but it's actually the Watchmaker argument. Richard Dawkins called his book 'The Blind Watchmaker' because of the old idea, but in his case (aka the real world) the watchmaker was evolution and it was blind in that it didn't ahve a direction for us. Therefore the blind watchmaker argument is pro-evolution.
Paley's watch maker is, as Drudwyn said, over 200 years old. Just look at the wikipedia page on it.
MikefromGlos, again I'm pleased that your argument is so good, but you've not actually said what it is yet. I'm sure the scientific world will be keen to test so we can progress our thinking on the subject. Once we know what it is we can start talking about it, until then we can't do anything about it.
the "where did dna come from" argument being persued here is indeed another instance of the blind watchmaker
Not wanting to be too much of a geek, but it's actually the Watchmaker argument. Richard Dawkins called his book 'The Blind Watchmaker' because of the old idea, but in his case (aka the real world) the watchmaker was evolution and it was blind in that it didn't ahve a direction for us. Therefore the blind watchmaker argument is pro-evolution.
Paley's watch maker is, as Drudwyn said, over 200 years old. Just look at the wikipedia page on it.
MikefromGlos, again I'm pleased that your argument is so good, but you've not actually said what it is yet. I'm sure the scientific world will be keen to test so we can progress our thinking on the subject. Once we know what it is we can start talking about it, until then we can't do anything about it.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
DeletePosted: Written by: jo_rhymes
Evolution is a fact.
No, it's 'only a theory'
Evolution is a fact.
No, it's 'only a theory'
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Deletecoleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:thank-you - edited for correctness
cole. x
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted:i think when you can show enough evidence to support a theory, it is then fact
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
Delete
Posted: Written by: Sym
Written by: jo_rhymes
Evolution is a fact.
No, it's 'only a theory'
Actually, it's both. Evolution is change, and can be seen in the wild, in the lab and in the fossil record, making it fact. The modern synthesis explains the change in a scientific manner, which is the theory. The idea that it can't be both is just part of the false dichotomy that is prevalent in this debate (like the concept that the entire bible has to be literaly true for god to exist).
Like it's said above, both evolution and god could be true, but young earth creationism is bible worship rather than god worship. Ken Millar makes some very good points on this topic, as did the Vatican's last astronomer.
(unless of course a global flood managed to deposit many gigatons of sediment in only a few hundred days, layer all the animals so they are in a vastly unlikely order that could also be produced by an evolutionary proscess but avoiding any anachronisms such as rabbits in the Carboniferous, or human artifacts before the tertiary, rejig all the different kinds of radioactive isotope ratios used in proportion to their layering, not to mention creating all those red herring like the extra telomeres and centromeres on human chromosone two and co-speciesation of gophers and their lice, but hey, if god has gone through all that trouble, perhaps he wants people to think the earth is old)
Written by: jo_rhymes
Evolution is a fact.
No, it's 'only a theory'
Actually, it's both. Evolution is change, and can be seen in the wild, in the lab and in the fossil record, making it fact. The modern synthesis explains the change in a scientific manner, which is the theory. The idea that it can't be both is just part of the false dichotomy that is prevalent in this debate (like the concept that the entire bible has to be literaly true for god to exist).
Like it's said above, both evolution and god could be true, but young earth creationism is bible worship rather than god worship. Ken Millar makes some very good points on this topic, as did the Vatican's last astronomer.
(unless of course a global flood managed to deposit many gigatons of sediment in only a few hundred days, layer all the animals so they are in a vastly unlikely order that could also be produced by an evolutionary proscess but avoiding any anachronisms such as rabbits in the Carboniferous, or human artifacts before the tertiary, rejig all the different kinds of radioactive isotope ratios used in proportion to their layering, not to mention creating all those red herring like the extra telomeres and centromeres on human chromosone two and co-speciesation of gophers and their lice, but hey, if god has gone through all that trouble, perhaps he wants people to think the earth is old)
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeletePosted:From wikipedia:
Written by: wikipedia
Stephen Jay Gould explained that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.... "Moreover,Fact does not mean absolute certainty." In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
The reason I said that it's only a theory was because some schools put disclaimer stickers on textbooks about evolution, saying that it was 'only' a theory.
Written by: wikipedia
Stephen Jay Gould explained that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.... "Moreover,Fact does not mean absolute certainty." In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
The reason I said that it's only a theory was because some schools put disclaimer stickers on textbooks about evolution, saying that it was 'only' a theory.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
DeletePosted:IMO belief in God is subjective. I know that I believe in god, and i know that alot of my friends and family don't.
I can't prove why I believe in Him/Her- I just do!
Whereas evolution is there for the whole world to see happening, and to me is a fact. I don't understand what's up with these crazy Christians.
Evolution happened, let's not teach lies.
I can't prove why I believe in Him/Her- I just do!
Whereas evolution is there for the whole world to see happening, and to me is a fact. I don't understand what's up with these crazy Christians.
Evolution happened, let's not teach lies.
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
DeletePosted:I agree. However the real point of ID vs. evolution is that the ID supports are saying what they have is science and not belief. As soon as someone says that what they have is science then it needs to be testable and stand up to the scientific method. ID supports say it's science, science tested it and it turned out that it can't stand up to the logical tests it needs to, so it's rejected.
This is something that happened about 150 years ago in the rest of the world, but in the last few years creationism has been renamed ID and the same arguments started up all over again.
As soon as the ID supports stop saying they are doing science and start saying that it is just faith and religion then science wont have a problem with it.
In addition to ID not being scientifically testable, they seem to have the very poor argument that just because evolution isn't 100% solid and there are some finer points that we don't know about yet then ID must be true.
There are loads of books on the subject, How we believe by Michael Shermer is very good as well as any of Dawkins books.
This is something that happened about 150 years ago in the rest of the world, but in the last few years creationism has been renamed ID and the same arguments started up all over again.
As soon as the ID supports stop saying they are doing science and start saying that it is just faith and religion then science wont have a problem with it.
In addition to ID not being scientifically testable, they seem to have the very poor argument that just because evolution isn't 100% solid and there are some finer points that we don't know about yet then ID must be true.
There are loads of books on the subject, How we believe by Michael Shermer is very good as well as any of Dawkins books.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
DeletePosted:By the way, I love this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Creationist_car.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Creationist_car.jpg
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Deletecoleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:this is the book people:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cosmic-Landscape-String-Illusion-Intelligent/dp/0316155799
br>
the man who discovered the (borderline scientific) string theory compares his framework with that of id - with a few questionable conclusions.
cosmology has always been a very grey area of science because the answers it seeks draw it dangerously close to metaphysics.
hawking's latest theory for example works by applying the uncertainty principle to the universe as a whole - that the measurements we make today shape the history of our universe.
will this theory ever be testable?
also, how come id is only used to counter evolution?
surely it is a theory of everything?
this article has a pretty decent explanation of what constitutes a good scientific theory:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000608/00/superstr.doc
br>
cole. x
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cosmic-Landscape-String-Illusion-Intelligent/dp/0316155799
br>
the man who discovered the (borderline scientific) string theory compares his framework with that of id - with a few questionable conclusions.
cosmology has always been a very grey area of science because the answers it seeks draw it dangerously close to metaphysics.
hawking's latest theory for example works by applying the uncertainty principle to the universe as a whole - that the measurements we make today shape the history of our universe.
will this theory ever be testable?
also, how come id is only used to counter evolution?
surely it is a theory of everything?
this article has a pretty decent explanation of what constitutes a good scientific theory:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000608/00/superstr.doc
br>
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted:Cole, do you have the string theory book? I'll swap you that for How we believe...
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
DeletePosted:What the *bleep* do we know anyways? runs back, trying to put the lid back on the can... 
runs back, trying to put the lid back on the can... the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Posted:*ahem* Jeff, I like your style.... 
I have to agree that it's absolutely awful that Americans are teaching CHILDREN that creationism or ID is a "science". It's a system of IDEAS and BELIEFS. Where exactly are the "facts"? It's based on stories that were put in writing a couple of hundred years after the supposed incidents, passed to people through word of mouth, which in turn makes them chinese whispers. You believe all the gossip you hear? Or how about all those folk stories that grandparents tell children? Or dracula? He was based on stories passed through generations about real people, but he didn't have fangs, suck blood, live in a coffin or fly. I mean, come on.....
I don't disagree with teaching children ID, I do believe that people should be able to hear every side of the story, particularly where a strong set of morals are being taught, which I think that any sensible person reading the bible should be able to pick up on. I was brought up going to church, but stopped going because I felt that it wasn't right for me, and my family support me in this. This is good christian morality.
I work as a biochemist studying for my PhD, and to be honest, everything they teach you at A level biology in school they tell you to scrap as soon as you go to university. In school you only get the dumbed-down version of scientific theories anyway. It's because the real theories take years to study and explain properly, which they don't have time for. (Oh, and the chicken and the egg - dinosaurs laid eggs - as do fish - so um, ha!!)
I do believe in something, but my "God" is more to do with the energy that is everything. We (like everything else on this planet) are made of atoms. These atoms are in the air around us, in our blood, our muscles, the flowers, the trees, the rocks (I would go on, but this could take a while). Whether we like it or not, we are connected to everything and everyone in this world by that same energy, regardless of religious beliefs, colour, languages spoken, or what the name of your aunts-boyfriends-sisters-nephews-cousin-dog is. I believe that everyone has a viewpoint, an argument, ideas on what is right and what is wrong, and I believe that we should respect that and embrace people for who and what they are. There are so many religions in the world that they can't all be right - and neither can they all be wrong.
But PLEASE - don't try and force feed children "science" based on mythology. Let them see all sides, and make up their minds for themselves.
I have to agree that it's absolutely awful that Americans are teaching CHILDREN that creationism or ID is a "science". It's a system of IDEAS and BELIEFS. Where exactly are the "facts"? It's based on stories that were put in writing a couple of hundred years after the supposed incidents, passed to people through word of mouth, which in turn makes them chinese whispers. You believe all the gossip you hear? Or how about all those folk stories that grandparents tell children? Or dracula? He was based on stories passed through generations about real people, but he didn't have fangs, suck blood, live in a coffin or fly. I mean, come on.....
I don't disagree with teaching children ID, I do believe that people should be able to hear every side of the story, particularly where a strong set of morals are being taught, which I think that any sensible person reading the bible should be able to pick up on. I was brought up going to church, but stopped going because I felt that it wasn't right for me, and my family support me in this. This is good christian morality.
I work as a biochemist studying for my PhD, and to be honest, everything they teach you at A level biology in school they tell you to scrap as soon as you go to university. In school you only get the dumbed-down version of scientific theories anyway. It's because the real theories take years to study and explain properly, which they don't have time for. (Oh, and the chicken and the egg - dinosaurs laid eggs - as do fish - so um, ha!!)
I do believe in something, but my "God" is more to do with the energy that is everything. We (like everything else on this planet) are made of atoms. These atoms are in the air around us, in our blood, our muscles, the flowers, the trees, the rocks (I would go on, but this could take a while). Whether we like it or not, we are connected to everything and everyone in this world by that same energy, regardless of religious beliefs, colour, languages spoken, or what the name of your aunts-boyfriends-sisters-nephews-cousin-dog is. I believe that everyone has a viewpoint, an argument, ideas on what is right and what is wrong, and I believe that we should respect that and embrace people for who and what they are. There are so many religions in the world that they can't all be right - and neither can they all be wrong.
But PLEASE - don't try and force feed children "science" based on mythology. Let them see all sides, and make up their minds for themselves.
"Lots of beeping. And shaking and tinfoil." Chelly
"Are you sure it's a genuine test and not a robot heroin addict?" Cantus
---set free by the rather lovely FireTom---
--(right arm owned by Fyre)--
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..
© 1998 - 2017 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.