- 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 TopicPatriarch917
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:Recall the ultimate issue that we are trying to determine is not whether one theory is true, or even more likely than the other. The issue we are pondering is whether children should be taught about both theories and allowed to make up their own minds, or whether one theory should be taught alone without allowing a dissenting view.
I believe it is clear that intelligent people can have good reasons to doubt either naturalistic evolution, intelligent design, or creationism. However, I do not believe that any of these theories should be hidden from children, or that one should be taught as a "scientifically proven fact" as so many in this thread have suggested. (Yes, it's true, people have claimed that in this thread).
I consider these theories of ultimate origin to be religious and philosophical belief systems that people must choose to believe in. I will teach my children about all of them, and others that we haven't considered (the claims of Hinduism, for example).
Some school boards in the US have wanted to be able to teach children about the existence of theories other than evolution, and the evidence for them. To some, allowing the teaching of anything that contradicts their belief is tantamount to scientific heresy.
Understand: the issue was not a suggestion that Creationism be taught in school. Neither was it suggested that the ideas of the age of the earth, or the evolution of species be questioned. The problem is that naturalistic evolution demands that we believe that life is the result of purposeless chance. There is, however, evidence that casts doubt on the theory that random chance can account for everything. There is also a theory that accommodates this evidence by suggesting that certain things did not happen by chance, but by design. The idea of design conflicts with a worldview based on a belief that everything is the result only of chance, because it allows the possible existence of a designer who acts with purpose.
Some who hold a worldview that demands a belief that everything be the result of unguided chance processes do not wish to allow any questioning of their beliefs. To them, even a sticker that states "evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be approached with an open mind" is something so horrible, it must be forbidden by law.
On the other hand, I suggest that it is better to allow question and dissent. If a theory is actually correct, it should have nothing to fear from being compared to alternative theories.
I believe it is clear that intelligent people can have good reasons to doubt either naturalistic evolution, intelligent design, or creationism. However, I do not believe that any of these theories should be hidden from children, or that one should be taught as a "scientifically proven fact" as so many in this thread have suggested. (Yes, it's true, people have claimed that in this thread).
I consider these theories of ultimate origin to be religious and philosophical belief systems that people must choose to believe in. I will teach my children about all of them, and others that we haven't considered (the claims of Hinduism, for example).
Some school boards in the US have wanted to be able to teach children about the existence of theories other than evolution, and the evidence for them. To some, allowing the teaching of anything that contradicts their belief is tantamount to scientific heresy.
Understand: the issue was not a suggestion that Creationism be taught in school. Neither was it suggested that the ideas of the age of the earth, or the evolution of species be questioned. The problem is that naturalistic evolution demands that we believe that life is the result of purposeless chance. There is, however, evidence that casts doubt on the theory that random chance can account for everything. There is also a theory that accommodates this evidence by suggesting that certain things did not happen by chance, but by design. The idea of design conflicts with a worldview based on a belief that everything is the result only of chance, because it allows the possible existence of a designer who acts with purpose.
Some who hold a worldview that demands a belief that everything be the result of unguided chance processes do not wish to allow any questioning of their beliefs. To them, even a sticker that states "evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be approached with an open mind" is something so horrible, it must be forbidden by law.
On the other hand, I suggest that it is better to allow question and dissent. If a theory is actually correct, it should have nothing to fear from being compared to alternative theories.
Delete
Posted:WOW - Patriarch... then I am 100% on your side and have misunderstood many of your posts in here. To me it appeared as if this turned into a discussion whether this OR that theory is valid or not.
Children should be taught any of those theories (as they should be taught about any religion on this planet) and should be able to choose their "view of the truth"... I think it's wrong for the state to censor this.
Phew - made me feel better
Children should be taught any of those theories (as they should be taught about any religion on this planet) and should be able to choose their "view of the truth"... I think it's wrong for the state to censor this.
Phew - made me feel better
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Posted:ID should not be taught as science, no question about it. It is not science.
There are court orders to back me up as well. Not to mention the mass of data to support evolution. What does a "view of the truth" mean?
There are court orders to back me up as well. Not to mention the mass of data to support evolution. What does a "view of the truth" mean?
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
DeletePosted:Well Sym - a great part of this discussion was about proof...
To some it simply is not clear and they defend their theory (as much as I personally do not comply with them)...
Therefore I support that all present theories are taught in school unless proven otherwise...
To some it simply is not clear and they defend their theory (as much as I personally do not comply with them)...
Therefore I support that all present theories are taught in school unless proven otherwise...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:Then provide some evidence from a respectable science journal. People can say anything they like within the internet, but in a peer reviewed journal you have to justify it.
Think the Earth's 6000 years old, then prove it, give me evidence from leading geological journal, where all submitions are checked for flawed logic by the world expects
Life can't have come about by mutation? Where are the articles in Nature then?
The truth is that the creationist arguements don't stand up under scrutiny. They can fool people who have only a passing knowledge of science, but people who have seen the evidence and understand the mechanics can see through it.
It's kind of like how the people least likely to report a UFO are those who spend the most time looking at the sky, astronomers.
I agree with Sym, teaching ID as science is like teaching Holocaust denial as history.
Think the Earth's 6000 years old, then prove it, give me evidence from leading geological journal, where all submitions are checked for flawed logic by the world expects
Life can't have come about by mutation? Where are the articles in Nature then?
The truth is that the creationist arguements don't stand up under scrutiny. They can fool people who have only a passing knowledge of science, but people who have seen the evidence and understand the mechanics can see through it.
It's kind of like how the people least likely to report a UFO are those who spend the most time looking at the sky, astronomers.
I agree with Sym, teaching ID as science is like teaching Holocaust denial as history.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeletePosted:You cannot prove a negative. And you cannot teach religion as science. ID does not compete against evolution in any way! ID is belief and evolution is science.
I dont have a problem with ID being taught along side normal christen teachings, or new age systems, Buddhism, Paganism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism etc. If people want to find a "view of the truth" within that then great, but if any school tells kids that evolution might not have happened because a religion thinks otherwise, then it is not acceptable in any way.
I dont have a problem with ID being taught along side normal christen teachings, or new age systems, Buddhism, Paganism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism etc. If people want to find a "view of the truth" within that then great, but if any school tells kids that evolution might not have happened because a religion thinks otherwise, then it is not acceptable in any way.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Delete
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
Recall the ultimate issue that we are trying to determine is not whether one theory is true, or even more likely than the other. The issue we are pondering is whether children should be taught about both theories and allowed to make up their own minds, or whether one theory should be taught alone without allowing a dissenting view.
As I see it the two are separate types of thing. Evolution is a scientific theory; intelligent design a relgious argument. I have no problem with both being taught - but ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught in a science lession.
Written by: Patriarch917
I believe it is clear that intelligent people can have good reasons to doubt either naturalistic evolution, intelligent design, or creationism. However, I do not believe that any of these theories should be hidden from children, or that one should be taught as a "scientifically proven fact" as so many in this thread have suggested. (Yes, it's true, people have claimed that in this thread).
Nothing should be taught as "scientifically proven fact". Schools sadly aren't the best place for kids to learn about the actual basis of science or the scientific method *sigh* However modern evolution is the best scientific theory we have to explain how things are, and there aren't any credible scientific alternatives. It should be taught in science as the most likely explaination.
Written by: Patriarch917
Understand: the issue was not a suggestion that Creationism be taught in school. Neither was it suggested that the ideas of the age of the earth, or the evolution of species be questioned. The problem is that naturalistic evolution demands that we believe that life is the result of purposeless chance. There is, however, evidence that casts doubt on the theory that random chance can account for everything. There is also a theory that accommodates this evidence by suggesting that certain things did not happen by chance, but by design. The idea of design conflicts with a worldview based on a belief that everything is the result only of chance, because it allows the possible existence of a designer who acts with purpose.
You're right, random chance would never have given rise to all of this. But evolution isn't about just random chance, and you know that
Written by: Patriarch917
Some who hold a worldview that demands a belief that everything be the result of unguided chance processes do not wish to allow any questioning of their beliefs. To them, even a sticker that states "evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be approached with an open mind" is something so horrible, it must be forbidden by law.
I'm not sure if this is a strawman position. I believe the majority of scientists and science teachers merely want ID out of science lessons.
Written by: Patriarch917
On the other hand, I suggest that it is better to allow question and dissent. If a theory is actually correct, it should have nothing to fear from being compared to alternative theories.
Certainly areas where evolution has shortcomings should be taught! And any alternative scientific theories should be taught. Certainly I remember being taught the calorific and phlogiston theories of heat in physics at school, even though they're wrong
Recall the ultimate issue that we are trying to determine is not whether one theory is true, or even more likely than the other. The issue we are pondering is whether children should be taught about both theories and allowed to make up their own minds, or whether one theory should be taught alone without allowing a dissenting view.
As I see it the two are separate types of thing. Evolution is a scientific theory; intelligent design a relgious argument. I have no problem with both being taught - but ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught in a science lession.
Written by: Patriarch917
I believe it is clear that intelligent people can have good reasons to doubt either naturalistic evolution, intelligent design, or creationism. However, I do not believe that any of these theories should be hidden from children, or that one should be taught as a "scientifically proven fact" as so many in this thread have suggested. (Yes, it's true, people have claimed that in this thread).
Nothing should be taught as "scientifically proven fact". Schools sadly aren't the best place for kids to learn about the actual basis of science or the scientific method *sigh* However modern evolution is the best scientific theory we have to explain how things are, and there aren't any credible scientific alternatives. It should be taught in science as the most likely explaination.
Written by: Patriarch917
Understand: the issue was not a suggestion that Creationism be taught in school. Neither was it suggested that the ideas of the age of the earth, or the evolution of species be questioned. The problem is that naturalistic evolution demands that we believe that life is the result of purposeless chance. There is, however, evidence that casts doubt on the theory that random chance can account for everything. There is also a theory that accommodates this evidence by suggesting that certain things did not happen by chance, but by design. The idea of design conflicts with a worldview based on a belief that everything is the result only of chance, because it allows the possible existence of a designer who acts with purpose.
You're right, random chance would never have given rise to all of this. But evolution isn't about just random chance, and you know that
Written by: Patriarch917
Some who hold a worldview that demands a belief that everything be the result of unguided chance processes do not wish to allow any questioning of their beliefs. To them, even a sticker that states "evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be approached with an open mind" is something so horrible, it must be forbidden by law.
I'm not sure if this is a strawman position. I believe the majority of scientists and science teachers merely want ID out of science lessons.
Written by: Patriarch917
On the other hand, I suggest that it is better to allow question and dissent. If a theory is actually correct, it should have nothing to fear from being compared to alternative theories.
Certainly areas where evolution has shortcomings should be taught! And any alternative scientific theories should be taught. Certainly I remember being taught the calorific and phlogiston theories of heat in physics at school, even though they're wrong
"Moo," said the happy cow.
DeleteBirgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005
![Birgit]()
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Total posts: 4145
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Total posts: 4145
Posted:just thought this might be interesting... not for the current thread of discussion, but on the subject of evolution:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5764/1068b
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5764/1068b
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Posted:I've found a brilliant Webcast of Ken Millar
Click 'ere
He comprehensivly owns intelligent design, smashing their arguements and shows the clear evidence for evolution. Including a large number of 'transitional forms'.
The lecture lasts an hour with anouther hour of Q & A. Enjoy!
Click 'ere
He comprehensivly owns intelligent design, smashing their arguements and shows the clear evidence for evolution. Including a large number of 'transitional forms'.
The lecture lasts an hour with anouther hour of Q & A. Enjoy!
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Delete
Posted:Written by: strugz
i read it and it made me laugh lots.......
spagetti monster and pirates altering the weather climate
Then i realised they were being serious about what they were saying.................
I think im missing the point of this Ben, do you have to be intelligent to understand, or am i having trouble because i havnt evolved properly...... yet
what? no!
if they were serious they would never sign of...
' I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.'
am i being stupid? they're making a point there surely?
i read it and it made me laugh lots.......
spagetti monster and pirates altering the weather climate
Then i realised they were being serious about what they were saying.................
I think im missing the point of this Ben, do you have to be intelligent to understand, or am i having trouble because i havnt evolved properly...... yet
what? no!
if they were serious they would never sign of...
' I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.'
am i being stupid? they're making a point there surely?
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
Posted:The spaghetti monster was a creation specifically to show how absurd arguments for teaching ID in a science class are. Even more, you may read a completely anit-religious bent into it too, though its main purpose was to battle ID.
I'm a skeptic in most things, so I'm going to reject the idea of "proof" of anything. That is "scientific facts" do not exist. There is only the observable evidence and the quality of the fit of a model to said evidence.
Which is why I reject ID, as it doesn't fit the observable evidence better than evolution, nor even close to as well as evolution. In essence, if you want to topple evolution, don't try to rip it down and create a vacuum. Come up with something that fits the evidence better.
Because ID doesn't.
I'm a skeptic in most things, so I'm going to reject the idea of "proof" of anything. That is "scientific facts" do not exist. There is only the observable evidence and the quality of the fit of a model to said evidence.
Which is why I reject ID, as it doesn't fit the observable evidence better than evolution, nor even close to as well as evolution. In essence, if you want to topple evolution, don't try to rip it down and create a vacuum. Come up with something that fits the evidence better.
Because ID doesn't.
Delete
Posted:that's what i thought...i just didn't get that strugz said 'then i realised they were being derious'
lol...i wodered how he came to that conclusion
lol...i wodered how he came to that conclusion
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
Domino
SILVER Member since May 2004
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Total posts: 757
SILVER Member since May 2004
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Total posts: 757
Posted:jeff(fake), that's a great link. Definately advice people to watch it. FSM even gets a mention!
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
Delete
Posted:Written by:
Some who hold a worldview that demands a belief that everything be the result of unguided chance processes do not wish to allow any questioning of their beliefs. To them, even a sticker that states "evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be approached with an open mind" is something so horrible, it must be forbidden by law.
I'm not sure if this is a strawman position. I believe the majority of scientists and science teachers merely want ID out of science lessons.
there is a lot of arrogance among neodarwinists presentation of evolution (see this thread for plenty of examples). while this has largely arisen due to the fact that they have gotten used to dealing with fairly ridiculous arguments from creationists and ID'ers largely based on 17th century metaphysics, it can however mean that they are equally dismissive of additional scientific evolutionary theories. Some of which are now proven. Google Margulis and endosymbiosis for an example...
Some who hold a worldview that demands a belief that everything be the result of unguided chance processes do not wish to allow any questioning of their beliefs. To them, even a sticker that states "evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be approached with an open mind" is something so horrible, it must be forbidden by law.
I'm not sure if this is a strawman position. I believe the majority of scientists and science teachers merely want ID out of science lessons.
there is a lot of arrogance among neodarwinists presentation of evolution (see this thread for plenty of examples). while this has largely arisen due to the fact that they have gotten used to dealing with fairly ridiculous arguments from creationists and ID'ers largely based on 17th century metaphysics, it can however mean that they are equally dismissive of additional scientific evolutionary theories. Some of which are now proven. Google Margulis and endosymbiosis for an example...
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
Posted:Written by: dream
Written by:
Written by:
Some who hold a worldview that demands a belief that everything be the result of unguided chance processes do not wish to allow any questioning of their beliefs. To them, even a sticker that states "evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be approached with an open mind" is something so horrible, it must be forbidden by law.
I'm not sure if this is a strawman position. I believe the majority of scientists and science teachers merely want ID out of science lessons.
there is a lot of arrogance among neodarwinists presentation of evolution (see this thread for plenty of examples). while this has largely arisen due to the fact that they have gotten used to dealing with fairly ridiculous arguments from creationists and ID'ers largely based on 17th century metaphysics, it can however mean that they are equally dismissive of additional scientific evolutionary theories. Some of which are now proven. Google Margulis and endosymbiosis for an example...
I think you're attacking a strawman here. Skepticism is the foundation of science. If science did not have such rigourous standards then we would have a myriad of ridiculous psuedoscience bumping around as science *cough*ID*cough*. Personally I think it is essential that all new hypothesises are treated with a huge degree of doubt until they can present evidence and be rationally argued for. Mendelianism and endosymbiosis are two such examples of this successful stratagy.
What I think we forget if the vast number of wrong theories which get rejected. Lamarkism for example. There's an old adage which I think fits in here...
"They laughed at Newton and they laughed at Galileo...but they also laughed at Bozo the clown"
On a final note as Ken Millar says in his webcast, they are right, evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be approached with an open mind and should be critically considered. The trouble is that EVERYTHING in science is theory, not fact, and EVERYTHING should be approached with an open mind and critically considered. To pick out evolution send a false message to students that everything else shouldn't be.
Written by:
Written by:
Some who hold a worldview that demands a belief that everything be the result of unguided chance processes do not wish to allow any questioning of their beliefs. To them, even a sticker that states "evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be approached with an open mind" is something so horrible, it must be forbidden by law.
I'm not sure if this is a strawman position. I believe the majority of scientists and science teachers merely want ID out of science lessons.
there is a lot of arrogance among neodarwinists presentation of evolution (see this thread for plenty of examples). while this has largely arisen due to the fact that they have gotten used to dealing with fairly ridiculous arguments from creationists and ID'ers largely based on 17th century metaphysics, it can however mean that they are equally dismissive of additional scientific evolutionary theories. Some of which are now proven. Google Margulis and endosymbiosis for an example...
I think you're attacking a strawman here. Skepticism is the foundation of science. If science did not have such rigourous standards then we would have a myriad of ridiculous psuedoscience bumping around as science *cough*ID*cough*. Personally I think it is essential that all new hypothesises are treated with a huge degree of doubt until they can present evidence and be rationally argued for. Mendelianism and endosymbiosis are two such examples of this successful stratagy.
What I think we forget if the vast number of wrong theories which get rejected. Lamarkism for example. There's an old adage which I think fits in here...
"They laughed at Newton and they laughed at Galileo...but they also laughed at Bozo the clown"
On a final note as Ken Millar says in his webcast, they are right, evolution is a theory, not a fact, and should be approached with an open mind and should be critically considered. The trouble is that EVERYTHING in science is theory, not fact, and EVERYTHING should be approached with an open mind and critically considered. To pick out evolution send a false message to students that everything else shouldn't be.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeletePosted:Written by: jeff(fake)
If science did not have such rigourous standards then we would have a myriad of ridiculous psuedoscience bumping around as science *cough*ID*cough*.
But we do...
If science did not have such rigourous standards then we would have a myriad of ridiculous psuedoscience bumping around as science *cough*ID*cough*.
But we do...
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
DeletePosted:Written by: Sym
Written by: jeff(fake)
If science did not have such rigourous standards then we would have a myriad of ridiculous psuedoscience bumping around as science *cough*ID*cough*.
But we do...
I meant in mainstream science, sorry ought to have made that clear.
Written by: jeff(fake)
If science did not have such rigourous standards then we would have a myriad of ridiculous psuedoscience bumping around as science *cough*ID*cough*.
But we do...
I meant in mainstream science, sorry ought to have made that clear.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Delete
Posted:Now - in this respect what you think is better?
A democracy that evolves, or one that's designed?
Currently Iraq is facing some hickups with a "designed" political concept...
A democracy that evolves, or one that's designed?
Currently Iraq is facing some hickups with a "designed" political concept...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:A very good article here
http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/
br>
on some new discoveries about viruses and how they fit into the grand scheme of things... including some very interesting stuff on the origin of life.
http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/
br>
on some new discoveries about viruses and how they fit into the grand scheme of things... including some very interesting stuff on the origin of life.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
DeletePosted:agggggggghhhhhhhhh
sorry just HAD TO SHOUT I stepped out of this discussion because I was getting annoyed at the repetition and crap being thrown about and the misinterpretation of scientific facts
Patriarch917
You seem to quote stuff when it suits you and ignore stuff you dont like or blatantly proves you wrong you have a very dog eyed view of science and scientific method
Sorry people I was just getting frustrated
I ask one question you seem to be fully convinced of your views and beliefs (which I respect) all seemingly based on the bible and its teaching (which I admit I dont know much about) what makes you believe the bible and not the larger scientific community.???????
I know I sound rude but I would much appreciate a reply (I am genuinely interested even if you do annoy me a bit)
sorry just HAD TO SHOUT I stepped out of this discussion because I was getting annoyed at the repetition and crap being thrown about and the misinterpretation of scientific facts
Patriarch917
You seem to quote stuff when it suits you and ignore stuff you dont like or blatantly proves you wrong you have a very dog eyed view of science and scientific method
Sorry people I was just getting frustrated
I ask one question you seem to be fully convinced of your views and beliefs (which I respect) all seemingly based on the bible and its teaching (which I admit I dont know much about) what makes you believe the bible and not the larger scientific community.???????
I know I sound rude but I would much appreciate a reply (I am genuinely interested even if you do annoy me a bit
)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)
DeletePosted:Written by: spiralx
A very good article here
http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/
br>
on some new discoveries about viruses and how they fit into the grand scheme of things... including some very interesting stuff on the origin of life.
nice artical
A very good article here
http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/
br>
on some new discoveries about viruses and how they fit into the grand scheme of things... including some very interesting stuff on the origin of life.
nice artical
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)
Deletefaith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Written by: Mint Sauce
agggggggghhhhhhhhh
sorry just HAD TO SHOUT I stepped out of this discussion because I was getting annoyed at the repetition and crap being thrown about and the misinterpretation of scientific facts
Patriarch917
You seem to quote stuff when it suits you and ignore stuff you dont like or blatantly proves you wrong you have a very dog eyed view of science and scientific method
Sorry people I was just getting frustrated
I ask one question you seem to be fully convinced of your views and beliefs (which I respect) all seemingly based on the bible and its teaching (which I admit I dont know much about) what makes you believe the bible and not the larger scientific community.???????
I know I sound rude but I would much appreciate a reply (I am genuinely interested even if you do annoy me a bit)
one is from an omniscient being and the other is from a bunch of people with limited understanding of the natural world
i don't take the bible fully literally but this is why i'd listen more to it. theories are always coming into question and getting revamped. the bible is mostly just translated
agggggggghhhhhhhhh
sorry just HAD TO SHOUT I stepped out of this discussion because I was getting annoyed at the repetition and crap being thrown about and the misinterpretation of scientific facts
Patriarch917
You seem to quote stuff when it suits you and ignore stuff you dont like or blatantly proves you wrong you have a very dog eyed view of science and scientific method
Sorry people I was just getting frustrated
I ask one question you seem to be fully convinced of your views and beliefs (which I respect) all seemingly based on the bible and its teaching (which I admit I dont know much about) what makes you believe the bible and not the larger scientific community.???????
I know I sound rude but I would much appreciate a reply (I am genuinely interested even if you do annoy me a bit
) one is from an omniscient being and the other is from a bunch of people with limited understanding of the natural world
i don't take the bible fully literally but this is why i'd listen more to it. theories are always coming into question and getting revamped. the bible is mostly just translated
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:would there be any single thing at all that would change what you think? I'm not trying to get you to change, but I think that is the difference between science and religion. Science will change when something new comes up, religion wont...
Again, I don't want to you to change as such, I'm just interested
Again, I don't want to you to change as such, I'm just interested
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
DeletePosted:Written by: faithinfire
one is from an omniscient being...
Says you...
Anyway the newer posts on this page and Ken Millar's webcast pretty much slaughter intelligent design and creationism.
one is from an omniscient being...
Says you...
Anyway the newer posts on this page and Ken Millar's webcast pretty much slaughter intelligent design and creationism.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeletePosted:Written by: jeff(fake)
I've found a brilliant Webcast of Ken Millar
Click 'ere
He comprehensivly owns intelligent design, smashing their arguements and shows the clear evidence for evolution. Including a large number of 'transitional forms'.
The lecture lasts an hour with anouther hour of Q & A. Enjoy!
just watched it very interesting and informative
I wouldnt say it disproves creationism in any way but dose totally knock it out of the water for being taught in the science class room
well worth a watch if you are at all interested in this subject. :) Ken Miller Webcast Archived
I would love to see a dissection augmenting for creationism
I've found a brilliant Webcast of Ken Millar
Click 'ere
He comprehensivly owns intelligent design, smashing their arguements and shows the clear evidence for evolution. Including a large number of 'transitional forms'.
The lecture lasts an hour with anouther hour of Q & A. Enjoy!
just watched it very interesting and informative
I wouldnt say it disproves creationism in any way but dose totally knock it out of the water for being taught in the science class room
well worth a watch if you are at all interested in this subject. :) Ken Miller Webcast Archived
I would love to see a dissection augmenting for creationism
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)
Deletefaith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Written by: Sym
would there be any single thing at all that would change what you think? I'm not trying to get you to change, but I think that is the difference between science and religion. Science will change when something new comes up, religion wont...
Again, I don't want to you to change as such, I'm just interested
most likely no, just like i doubt that there is much that i could say that would change jeffs mind (just an example)
would there be any single thing at all that would change what you think? I'm not trying to get you to change, but I think that is the difference between science and religion. Science will change when something new comes up, religion wont...
Again, I don't want to you to change as such, I'm just interested
most likely no, just like i doubt that there is much that i could say that would change jeffs mind (just an example
)Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:Written by: faithinfire
Written by: Sym
would there be any single thing at all that would change what you think? I'm not trying to get you to change, but I think that is the difference between science and religion. Science will change when something new comes up, religion wont...
Again, I don't want to you to change as such, I'm just interested
most likely no, just like i doubt that there is much that i could say that would change jeffs mind (just an example)
You're wrong actually. Being a rationalist is all about having the strength to be corrected. If we find a rabbit in precambrian strata then evolution would look a bit dodgy. If bacteria didn't evolve in the lab it would look dodgy too. Evolution is a strong theory because it could be very easily disproven, but never is.
The ability to acept the evidence is what seperates science from religion.
Written by: Sym
would there be any single thing at all that would change what you think? I'm not trying to get you to change, but I think that is the difference between science and religion. Science will change when something new comes up, religion wont...
Again, I don't want to you to change as such, I'm just interested
most likely no, just like i doubt that there is much that i could say that would change jeffs mind (just an example
) You're wrong actually. Being a rationalist is all about having the strength to be corrected. If we find a rabbit in precambrian strata then evolution would look a bit dodgy. If bacteria didn't evolve in the lab it would look dodgy too. Evolution is a strong theory because it could be very easily disproven, but never is.
The ability to acept the evidence is what seperates science from religion.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
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:I watched the webcast, and was underwhelmed. To insist on a precommitment to materialist explanations is the fundamental flaw of the theory of evolution.
The problem that the theory of evolution, intelligent design, creationism, and all other origin theories are all trying to solve is how useful information comes into being. For a moment, consider the theory that life originated from a chance organization of non-living material.
The simplest possible self reproducing cellular organism needs to have DNA that codifies the instructions for how the cells is built. To say that DNA is a large, complex arrangement of atoms is like saying that "War and Peace" is a large, complex arrangement of letters. The arrangement of letters in "War and Peace" is not merely large and complex, the letters are arranged in such a way as to codify information. Their arrangement serves as a way of describing people, places, actions, and all of the other things that take place in the book. In the same way, the information in the DNA describes the functions of the cell.
It is entirely possible for letters to fall into large, complex arrangements by accident. We can acquire large amounts of Scrabble tiles, and fling them onto a large, empty floor to create large, complex arrangements. Some of the letters will form strands. A few of these strands will be words. The odds of getting an intelligible English sentence can be calculated. We can also calculate the probability of getting a book as well written as "War and Peace."
Imagine that the entire ocean is made up of Scrabble tiles, and the weather alternates between raining glue, and glue solvent. The glue will occasionally hook letters together. The glue solvent will occasionally separate them so the system will stay dynamic. The objective is to get the letters to hook up into a pattern as meaningful as that contained in the book "War and Peace." How long will this take to happen?
Understand, what is needed is not just a string of letters as large as "War and Peace." The letters have to convey meaning. Specifically, they must describe the structure of a living, self reproducing organism that can live in this environment.
We can believe that the Earth's oceans were filled with "dead" organisms partially forming and disintegrating. There must have been a small percentage that would even "come alive" but be incapable of reproduction, or were not suited to eating the food that was available around them, or had some other defect. Assuming all the more difficult chemical hurdles are overcome, the final hurdle is the chance arrangement of the cell's DNA into a useful form that would allow it to reproduce another cell similar to it.
The components of DNA are relatively simple. It's a double helix consisting of an arrangement of a few different atoms that can be thought of as letters. Those atoms are arranged in strings that can be thought of as words and sentences. The arrangement can convey a useful meaning ("Seek out food from surrounding sources and produce a replica of yourself"), a destructive meaning ("Cannibalize your internal components and produce sugar"), or no meaning ("Fmojk lkasnnjire asnoig poqwjre oij xbkowsn"). Obviously, we are not satisfied with just any complex pattern, we want the one that suits our needs.
DNA and cell formation is a bit complex for us. We cannot easily imagine and compare in our minds the different between a DNA molecule that conveys a useful meaning, and one that does not. We can understand the difference between a jumble of letters and a book, but even this illustration is unwieldy. Let us imagine a very simple structure: a Rubik's Cube.
Like DNA, a Rubik's cube is a simple structure that can be arranged in a large number of patterns. Unlike DNA, we can easily imagine the difference between a "solved" Rubik's cube and an unsolved one.
The DNA pattern within the hypothetical cell that is the parent of all other living things needed to have a DNA structure that was "solved" in such a way as to allow it to live in it's environment, and eventually reproduce better organisms than itself. While it is true that a DNA molecule might better be conceived as being a whole bunch of Rubik's cubes, lets stick with just one for now.
If you start with a presumption that there is no intelligent input from a source that can actually assess what the "correct" pattern is for the DNA, you must believe that random patterns were tried over and over again until a solved one arrived by chance. Natural selection would then allow that solved pattern to exist (after killing off all of the previous patterns).
You can reenact this method of finding a solution for DNA with a simple game you can play at home. Get a mixed up Rubik's cube, blindfold a friend, and have him try to solve it. You sit in front of him and say "no" whenever the pattern is incorrect and "yes" when the pattern is correct. For more fun, you can look up the six characteristics of life on wikipedia, and let each color represent each of the characteristics. To keep things from getting boring, whenever he gets all nine squares on one side to all be the same color you can encourage him by telling him that he has formed a creature with the assigned characteristic, but that it died. When he solves all six sides through this trial and error process, you will have completed an extremely simple analogy of how life developed.
Of course, each characteristic of life has more than nine things that must align, and a creature with only some of the characteristics isn't good enough to start the chain of life that evolution theorizes. Thus, even when organisms formed with "all but one side" they died off without successfully spawning children that could "learn from their mistakes." Organisms that would form later could not learn anything from the ones that had gotten "close." This method of adaptation only worked once a reasonably suitable self replicating organism started producing children. Still, this game will help you appreciate the non-miracle of life a bit better.
If something as complex as a living, self reproducing organism can, through a trial and error process of random combinations, produce the information needed in the DNA, it stands to reason that a Rubik's cube could be solved by a similar method.
Does anyone know what the probability is of solving the Rubik's cube by the method I have described? Some might object that a standard (3x3x3) Rubik's cube is not complex enough to represent the arrangement of characteristics within a cell. Perhaps a 5x5x5 cube would be a step in the right direction.
The problem that the theory of evolution, intelligent design, creationism, and all other origin theories are all trying to solve is how useful information comes into being. For a moment, consider the theory that life originated from a chance organization of non-living material.
The simplest possible self reproducing cellular organism needs to have DNA that codifies the instructions for how the cells is built. To say that DNA is a large, complex arrangement of atoms is like saying that "War and Peace" is a large, complex arrangement of letters. The arrangement of letters in "War and Peace" is not merely large and complex, the letters are arranged in such a way as to codify information. Their arrangement serves as a way of describing people, places, actions, and all of the other things that take place in the book. In the same way, the information in the DNA describes the functions of the cell.
It is entirely possible for letters to fall into large, complex arrangements by accident. We can acquire large amounts of Scrabble tiles, and fling them onto a large, empty floor to create large, complex arrangements. Some of the letters will form strands. A few of these strands will be words. The odds of getting an intelligible English sentence can be calculated. We can also calculate the probability of getting a book as well written as "War and Peace."
Imagine that the entire ocean is made up of Scrabble tiles, and the weather alternates between raining glue, and glue solvent. The glue will occasionally hook letters together. The glue solvent will occasionally separate them so the system will stay dynamic. The objective is to get the letters to hook up into a pattern as meaningful as that contained in the book "War and Peace." How long will this take to happen?
Understand, what is needed is not just a string of letters as large as "War and Peace." The letters have to convey meaning. Specifically, they must describe the structure of a living, self reproducing organism that can live in this environment.
We can believe that the Earth's oceans were filled with "dead" organisms partially forming and disintegrating. There must have been a small percentage that would even "come alive" but be incapable of reproduction, or were not suited to eating the food that was available around them, or had some other defect. Assuming all the more difficult chemical hurdles are overcome, the final hurdle is the chance arrangement of the cell's DNA into a useful form that would allow it to reproduce another cell similar to it.
The components of DNA are relatively simple. It's a double helix consisting of an arrangement of a few different atoms that can be thought of as letters. Those atoms are arranged in strings that can be thought of as words and sentences. The arrangement can convey a useful meaning ("Seek out food from surrounding sources and produce a replica of yourself"), a destructive meaning ("Cannibalize your internal components and produce sugar"), or no meaning ("Fmojk lkasnnjire asnoig poqwjre oij xbkowsn"). Obviously, we are not satisfied with just any complex pattern, we want the one that suits our needs.
DNA and cell formation is a bit complex for us. We cannot easily imagine and compare in our minds the different between a DNA molecule that conveys a useful meaning, and one that does not. We can understand the difference between a jumble of letters and a book, but even this illustration is unwieldy. Let us imagine a very simple structure: a Rubik's Cube.
Like DNA, a Rubik's cube is a simple structure that can be arranged in a large number of patterns. Unlike DNA, we can easily imagine the difference between a "solved" Rubik's cube and an unsolved one.
The DNA pattern within the hypothetical cell that is the parent of all other living things needed to have a DNA structure that was "solved" in such a way as to allow it to live in it's environment, and eventually reproduce better organisms than itself. While it is true that a DNA molecule might better be conceived as being a whole bunch of Rubik's cubes, lets stick with just one for now.
If you start with a presumption that there is no intelligent input from a source that can actually assess what the "correct" pattern is for the DNA, you must believe that random patterns were tried over and over again until a solved one arrived by chance. Natural selection would then allow that solved pattern to exist (after killing off all of the previous patterns).
You can reenact this method of finding a solution for DNA with a simple game you can play at home. Get a mixed up Rubik's cube, blindfold a friend, and have him try to solve it. You sit in front of him and say "no" whenever the pattern is incorrect and "yes" when the pattern is correct. For more fun, you can look up the six characteristics of life on wikipedia, and let each color represent each of the characteristics. To keep things from getting boring, whenever he gets all nine squares on one side to all be the same color you can encourage him by telling him that he has formed a creature with the assigned characteristic, but that it died. When he solves all six sides through this trial and error process, you will have completed an extremely simple analogy of how life developed.
Of course, each characteristic of life has more than nine things that must align, and a creature with only some of the characteristics isn't good enough to start the chain of life that evolution theorizes. Thus, even when organisms formed with "all but one side" they died off without successfully spawning children that could "learn from their mistakes." Organisms that would form later could not learn anything from the ones that had gotten "close." This method of adaptation only worked once a reasonably suitable self replicating organism started producing children. Still, this game will help you appreciate the non-miracle of life a bit better.
If something as complex as a living, self reproducing organism can, through a trial and error process of random combinations, produce the information needed in the DNA, it stands to reason that a Rubik's cube could be solved by a similar method.
Does anyone know what the probability is of solving the Rubik's cube by the method I have described? Some might object that a standard (3x3x3) Rubik's cube is not complex enough to represent the arrangement of characteristics within a cell. Perhaps a 5x5x5 cube would be a step in the right direction.
Delete
Posted:you seem to have changed your argument some what i see
intresting
intresting
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)
DeleteSimilar 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.