The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 47    Average: 3.1/5]
165 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 5120
Rating: 3.1
Category: Misc
Date: 03/17/09 12:19 PM

165 Responses to Evolution vs. Creationism: A Cultural Debate

  1. Profile photo of LittleMissQT
    LittleMissQT Female 18-29
    1277 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 1:09 pm
    Link: Evolution vs. Creationism: A Cultural Debate - Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science, says the debate is not theological, but cultural and akin to the one on abortion
  2. Profile photo of karenina
    karenina Female 13-17
    192 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 1:22 pm
    You know, we were talking about trust, marriage, the death sentence, and fear in class... I`ve noticed that North American girls, especially ones in honors classes (the rich ones, mostly) are really sheltered, and their values are different from those of my friends and myself (we`re Hispanic... lower to lower middle class)...
    It`s amazing!!!
  3. Profile photo of DarkRose1593
    DarkRose1593 Female 13-17
    60 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 1:28 pm
    Ok, I`ve never been a Hilary Clinton supporter, but if people are threatened by her because she`s a WOMAN, they need to get over it. Women can do "man" jobs just as well as men do.
  4. Profile photo of karenina
    karenina Female 13-17
    192 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 1:29 pm
    I love how he says "No!" at 2:10. :-P
  5. Profile photo of SirKevin
    SirKevin Male 13-17
    240 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 1:30 pm
    Dog breeding is pure, hard evidence of evolution. /discussion.
  6. Profile photo of LTimeLurker
    LTimeLurker Female 18-29
    723 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 1:35 pm
    Karenina - Truly, it is. I am not rich by any means and it didn`t take long for me to realize that my world perspective was drastically different from the remainder of the students (especially in AP courses). I found myself precariously pressed closer to the chasm between the wealthy teens who had experienced little hardship and the lower class teens who had experienced little other. Funny thing is, because they were both immersed within the same basic culture (America)...they struggled with the same basic adolescent issues.

    As far as being "sheltered" goes, take it from me...both sides will call you such if you try to avoid poor influences.

  7. Profile photo of dilldog123
    dilldog123 Male 18-29
    1856 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 1:44 pm
    I`m surprised this place hasn`t exploded yet....I`ll just keep waiting. You`re my entertainment for the night, IAB religion debate!
  8. Profile photo of s0rd3dvis1on
    s0rd3dvis1on Male 18-29
    2388 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 1:49 pm
    he is a very funny person to listen too :P
  9. Profile photo of SarahJ86
    SarahJ86 Female 18-29
    495 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 1:50 pm
    I love fora tv... I think Ruse has some interesting points too.
  10. Profile photo of warmst
    warmst Male 30-39
    17 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 2:20 pm
    Being new to philosophy, I have only one point to make. He makes certain assumptions, most of which he backs up, but one he does not, and nobody can. He makes the assumption that Obama is not an on the fringes of the left. If he hadn`t said that I agree with what he says, only because I generally don`t get involved in debates about evolution.
  11. Profile photo of thebandit
    thebandit Male 18-29
    362 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 2:21 pm
    dilldog123
    hey hey now, this isn`t a religious debate.
    its a social one :)
  12. Profile photo of BlooPikachu
    BlooPikachu Female 18-29
    346 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 2:27 pm
    I wish this guy was my grandpa.
  13. Profile photo of DavidXJ
    DavidXJ Male 30-39
    1106 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 2:44 pm
    What about us evangelical Christians that believe that God used evolution as the way to create the world as we know it? I hope he doesn`t lump us in with "7-day creationists."
  14. Profile photo of kdawg
    kdawg Male 40-49
    172 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 3:13 pm
    LOL "Hillary Clinton is what `they` find deeply threatening" ...nice.. its not about culture or religion to this guy its about politics. Just look at the pure science people... evolution has been proven to be a joke over and over again. Don`t start reaching into the dark blindly with political views. Come on back to the very science you stood firmly on to begin with.
  15. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2441 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 3:24 pm
    kdawg, what in the f*<k are you talking about? Evolution is a joke? So I guess it`s a joke that is the basis of modern biology, backed up by the discovery of DNA, and is the method used to develop the very medicines that keep you alive.

    It`s not a cultural debate because the debate (within science) is OVER. End of story.

  16. Profile photo of Boadicea
    Boadicea Female 18-29
    1677 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 3:27 pm
    I`m completely for abortion in any case. Nevermind putting restrictions on it, saying it`s "okay" only in cases of rape or incest.

    I say it`s okay in every single case. Haha, so who wants to fight?

  17. Profile photo of eggsnham
    eggsnham Male 13-17
    1140 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 3:28 pm
    okay, so evolution = confusing jumble of "facts" trying to basically prove that we are the galaxy`s accident children... makes me wonder why the galaxy didn`t abort
  18. Profile photo of domisgood
    domisgood Male 18-29
    4868 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 3:29 pm
    he had a funny voice

    dill, shush

  19. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 3:40 pm
    Interesting... interesting... I think he`s a little too soft on them but that`s his business.

    Also I think he misses the point, he`s suggesting people believe in whatever will make society work better not whats necessarily true. I suspect that there were many creationists in the audience.

  20. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 3:44 pm
    where is the proof that evolution is a joke?

    where is the scientific double blind experiments that prove this? Or are you using the usual flawed logic that is commonly used against evolution?

    As a programmer that works on genetic algorithms for software for a living, I have seen with my own eyes applications scour billions and billions of permutations of variables and datasets, and arrive at a statistically identical outcome, in as little as 50 generations... overcoming `irreducible complexity` arguments commonly used to argue against evolution.

    The critical difference between Science and Religion: Science changes in light of new evidence.If there was evidence that evolution was a failed theory, then scientists replicate the experiment to make sure... and change the textbooks. Religious dogma doesn`t change...

    I`m an athiest and have read the bible... have you read The God Delusion by Dawkins? have you read the Koran?... or did you just swallow what you were told?

  21. Profile photo of FlameOfUdun
    FlameOfUdun Male 18-29
    1222 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 3:47 pm
    "continual conflict between the two sides."
    That`s as far as i got. I have never come across any conflict. I don`t know anybody who has. If you have problems, get over yourself.
  22. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 3:51 pm
    "Just look at the pure science people... evolution has been proven to be a joke over and over again."

    Bull. Evolution is a scientific theory, which is an idea that has been tested repeatedly by science and NEVER found to be false. Just like gravity, relativity, and nuclear theory- other scientific theories with just as much evidence as evolution.

    There`s no controversy within the scientific community as to whether evolution occurs or not. None. Creationists instead try and argue for `opposing viewpoints`, to get a decidedly non-scientific idea into classrooms.

    Creationism/Intelligent Design are unfalsifiable, untestable, and invoke the supernatural. Those three characteristics each independently render the idea unfit for the title of hypothesis. They`re not science, plain and simple.

    It`s not a political or sociological issue. It`s religion, plain and simple. The religious refuse to accept any idea that they believe compromises their faith.

  23. Profile photo of sixclaws13
    sixclaws13 Male 18-29
    2314 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 4:17 pm
    I fail to see this guys point. This jackass can`t tell me that I`m debating a cultural point instead of a religious one. I believe the Earth was created. I don`t believe this because it is a random idea lumped on with my beliefs. I don`t believe in God because of the views I hold, I hold certain views because I believe in God. And I have never, in any of the Christian literature I`ve read, come across anything talking about cross dressing.
  24. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 4:19 pm
    " Religious dogma doesn`t change..."

    ....Vatican 2?

    "Creationism/Intelligent Design are unfalsifiable, untestable, and invoke the supernatural. Those three characteristics each independently render the idea unfit for the title of hypothesis. They`re not science, plain and simple."

    Wow...isn`t that a slap to the works of Carl Jung.

  25. Profile photo of Mondo48
    Mondo48 Male 18-29
    138 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 4:20 pm
    Show me the spark of life. Show me how life started, billions of years ago in the prehistoric "soup" of which life crawled out of. We cant even replicate that, now. Show me a synthetic life form. Not a robot, but one that breathes, thinks, reproduces, and uses its own abilities to obtain energy for itself to survive. You cant. Scientists cant do that, today. And millions of people believe it happened randomly. That, my friend, also takes faith.

    And if it took millions of years for this environment to be adapted to, why wasnt other environments adapted to on other planets? Oh thats right, its unable to support life. Well, by our life standards, anyway. Those planets started with the same scenario we did, nothing had ever lived there before, and life emerged here. Why not there? That is my own personal "proof" against evolution.

    Its Supernatural (Intelligent Design) vs. Impossibility (Evolution). Take your pick. Both take Faith, and a lot of

  26. Profile photo of sixclaws13
    sixclaws13 Male 18-29
    2314 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 4:27 pm
    "As a programmer that works on genetic algorithms for software for a living, I have seen with my own eyes applications scour billions and billions of permutations of variables and datasets, and arrive at a statistically identical outcome, in as little as 50 generations... overcoming `irreducible complexity` arguments commonly used to argue against evolution."

    No offense, but that`s a pretty poor argument. The complexities of the most intricate computer program are nothing next to the complexities of even the simplest life form. Also, yes, I`ve read the Bible and The God Delusion, and I`m working on the Koran and Torah. I read Dawkins with a completely open mind and my faith only grew.

  27. Profile photo of sixclaws13
    sixclaws13 Male 18-29
    2314 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 4:40 pm
    None of my beliefs were derived from brainwashing, and if I had been brought up in a completely secular society where the possibilities of neither gods or other lives had ever even been mentioned, I believe that I still would have come to know the truth. The details might be fuzzier since no one was keeping the theological history alive, but the truth will always show through eventually.
  28. Profile photo of sixclaws13
    sixclaws13 Male 18-29
    2314 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 4:50 pm
    Once you read the Bible and start looking for the Truth, rather than the "truths" being fed to us all, those holes start to vanish.
  29. Profile photo of CharlieA
    CharlieA Male 18-29
    502 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:00 pm
    " Religious dogma doesn`t change..."

    "....Vatican 2?"

    Dogmas and doctrines, although they can be clarified, enlarged, or restated for the sake of changing times, can never, ever be abolished, contradicted, or altered. They are quite literally, "Canon Law."

  30. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2441 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:10 pm
    Mondo48, your ignorance scares me. As does sixclaws`.

    Those who honestly care about the truth will risk the non-sense that is an afterlife in hell. It`s scary, I know, but truth molds around reality, not the other way around.

  31. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:13 pm
    sixclaws
    I didn`t intend to infer that a program can replicate the complexity of nature. I meant to suggest that there is evidence to show that either impossible events. I have witnessed in cold hard data events with probabilities of less than 1 in a billion can be found to manifest with genetic algorithms. Seemingly impossible, but it occurs and can be explained logically through evolutionary processes.

    Through GAs, traits develop in data sets that would require many random mutations to occur simaltanesouly - traits that are unexplainable without understanding the process that was used. This is be shown to happen again and again - and it provides supporting evidence to the idea that whilst something like the eye may appear to appear to be irreducibly complex, there is a simple explanation - with proof - that explains it.

    I am not attempting to show definitive proof of evolution. I am suggesting data that supports a hypothesis, not just saying `You are wrong I am right.`

  32. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:15 pm
    "i have read the bible and that`s how i know it`s full of holes. you speak nonsense."

    Ok...what are they?

  33. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:16 pm
    "Once you read the Bible and start looking for the Truth, rather than the "truths" being fed to us all, those holes start to vanish."

    The more ignorant with blind faith you are, the less you need to substantiate anything with fact I guess... making the holes vanish.

    I believe in the flying spagetti monster. He told me that he is real and god is fake, and that anyone that is any other religion is wrong. He told me he is all powerful and all knowledgeable and despite the lack of logic of something being all powerful, I believed him.

    Wow... all the holes just vanished.

  34. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:17 pm
    primetimekin
    start here

    Bible contradictions

  35. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:18 pm
    If god is omnipotent, can he make a mountain so big, that even he couldn`t move it?

    (*waits for people to attack me instead of the argument*

  36. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:19 pm
    Ah funny hyperspective, websites specifically designed to take a line out of context, on a grand scale!


    How about you pick your own little favorite contradiction. You know, for kicks and giggles

  37. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    and some more... interestingly this is a pro-islam site.

    http://www.islamway.com/english/images/l...

  38. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:21 pm
    primetimekin,
    I think these websites are pathetic too... like they actually prove anything.

    Where there is room for interpretation than of course contradictions will arise.

  39. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:22 pm
    * and I didn`t say the bible was full of contradictions.

    that was someone else :)

  40. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:24 pm
    "* and I didn`t say the bible was full of contradictions.
    that was someone else :)"

    Same avie, same person. You and madest and mondo are just the same person

  41. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:27 pm
    wow.
    how intelligent of you.
  42. Profile photo of jakeman203
    jakeman203 Male 18-29
    80 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:30 pm
    hyperspectre i checked out that link of yours and honestly i can see what they are saying but they really miss the whole point of Christianity. those "holes" are really irrelevant to anything about Christianity. Honestly, that website is just one of those websites who really dont look at the Bible from a neutral point of view. When you can obviously tell a person`s view about a topic then it really is not citeable what so ever.
  43. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:34 pm
    jakeman - you are completely right.

    They weren`t worth really worth mentioning... I bet there are 100 sites that solve these contradictions out there as well...

    here is one.

    http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

    the whole contradiction thing misses the point. Even if there were contradictions, that necessarily prove or disprove anything.

    ... if there were contradictions, perhaps it could be the fallability of man to recieve gods word accurately.

  44. Profile photo of Nidonemo
    Nidonemo Male 18-29
    9308 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:35 pm
    Uhhhhngh...how DULL!

    Can`t we argue about something more colorful now? Like cake frosting, or waffles?

  45. Profile photo of Mondo48
    Mondo48 Male 18-29
    138 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:39 pm
    nah, we`re not the same.

    If my ignorance scares you, watch george carlin. thats scary.

    I`m not saying that there is a God, or that evolution happened. I am standing back and stating the opinion that they both require faith.

    You cant prove there is no God. I cant prove there is One. I cant prove evolution wrong. You cant prove it right. No one can prove either of these right or wrong.

    So go ahead and recite what you`ve heard and read on other websites, and bash the hell out of what you dont believe for being "ignorant." And afterwards, try to come up with your own conclusion

  46. Profile photo of Mondo48
    Mondo48 Male 18-29
    138 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:41 pm
    And pancakes are SOOO much better than waffles.
  47. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:45 pm
    good point mondo.

    I agree... you can`t prove evolution...

    it is a theory, not a law, and evidence may come forth disproving it... then the theory will be no more.

  48. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:45 pm
    depends whats on the waffles.
  49. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2441 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:46 pm
    Mondo48,
    "I am standing back and stating the opinion that they both require faith." - Wrong. Science is about evidence, not faith.

    "You cant prove there is no God." True. You can`t prove a negative. "I cant prove there is One. I cant prove evolution wrong. You cant prove it right. No one can prove either of these right or wrong." FLAT OUT F*<KING WRONG. How thick are you? There`s no way to prove evolution is true? Well dang, I guess scientists just shrug at all these fossils then, huh? I strongly suggest reading a basic book on biology. Or better yet, visit a museum, or a university. You can SEE THE FOSSILS.

  50. Profile photo of kingdomCome
    kingdomCome Male 18-29
    338 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:47 pm
    Religious flamewar?
    “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” -Stephen Roberts
  51. Profile photo of Yaos
    Yaos Male 18-29
    78 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:47 pm
    Evolution is real, deal with it.
  52. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:49 pm
    " FLAT OUT F*<KING WRONG. How thick are you? There`s no way to prove evolution is true? Well dang, I guess scientists just shrug at all these fossils then, huh? I strongly suggest reading a basic book on biology. Or better yet, visit a museum, or a university. You can SEE THE FOSSILS."

    Theories can only be disproved..... wow I thought that was pretty obvious.

    And pancakes are better than waffles BUT waffle houses are better than pancake houses

  53. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:52 pm
    "“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” -Stephen Roberts"

    athiest dont believe in any gods. theist believe in at least one. Im tired of this stupid quote being used. Stupid rhetoric

  54. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:54 pm
    "Theories can only be disproved..... wow I thought that was pretty obvious."

    Then disprove gravity. Show us that we aren`t pulled to the ground.

    Disprove nuclear theory. Show us that nuclear reactors don`t work and Hiroshima still stands.

    Disprove relativity. Show us that Einstein was utterly wrong and that satellites don`t have time dilation issues.

  55. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:55 pm
    "athiest dont believe in any gods. theist believe in at least one. Im tired of this stupid quote being used. Stupid rhetoric"

    And yet you entirely miss the point.

    For the same reason that you disbelieve in Vishnu, Krishna, Odin, Thor, Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, Allah, and Horus, an atheist can disbelieve in God.

  56. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:55 pm
    " FLAT OUT F*<KING WRONG. How thick are you? There`s no way to prove evolution is true? Well dang, I guess scientists just shrug at all these fossils then, huh? I strongly suggest reading a basic book on biology. Or better yet, visit a museum, or a university. You can SEE THE FOSSILS."

    no need to flame.

    "Theories can only be disproved..... wow I thought that was pretty obvious."

    yes they can. Thats the point. Scientific process means that the theories are challenged... and to stand the test of time there can`t be significant physical evidence to the contrary.

    Can religion do the same? does it adapt its canon law to accomodate new information?

    "And pancakes are better than waffles BUT waffle houses are better than pancake houses"

    Yeah waffle houses are better.

  57. Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:57 pm
    You ask, "why wasnt other environments adapted to on other planets?"
    Seriously? You do know that we can`t really analyze environments outside of our solar system, right? Just because the other planets in our solar system aren`t hospitable in life doesn`t mean we`re the only ones. Our technology has yet to progress far enough to allow us to study other planets far away. The other planets can`t support life. It was luck. The others right here are unable to support life. That doesn`t disprove evolution, that proves that we couldn`t have evolved on other planets in our system.
    Besides, there are observable examples of evolution. One good example is of the peppered moths during the industrial revolution in England. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_mo...
    Another, more recent example is lizards who were introduced onto an island and just 36 years later were found to have
  58. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:58 pm
    cat...prove w/o a shadow of a doubt the theory of gravity...go ahead and test it in every single possible location.

    Henceforth theories cant be proved, only disproved. 4th grade science guys..not to hard.
    "I contend we are both atheists" No, I believe in God. Next.

    "And yet you entirely miss the point."

    I got that, what i`m saying is that you shouldn`t misuse english and start making up your own definitions.

  59. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:58 pm
    good points catbarf.

    I believe the law of relativity has actually changed over time because Einsteins theory doesn`t hold up at the quantum level... I`m no physicist though so don`t flame me if I`m wrong!

  60. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 5:59 pm
    "I got that, what i`m saying is that you shouldn`t misuse english and start making up your own definitions."

    did I do this?

  61. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:00 pm
    "Henceforth theories cant be proved, only disproved. 4th grade science guys..not to hard.
    "I contend we are both atheists" No, I believe in God. Next."

    The fact that something can be falsified does not mean that it can be dismissed. Indeed, a scientific idea MUST be able to be falsified, else it cannot become a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Case in point- Intelligent Design/Creationism.

  62. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:00 pm
    ""I got that, what i`m saying is that you shouldn`t misuse english and start making up your own definitions."
    did I do this?"

    Not you..you.....the other same avie you

  63. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:01 pm
    what is avie?
  64. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:01 pm
    "The fact that something can be falsified does not mean that it can be dismissed. "

    Re-read what I said..its there in pretty letters...when did I say it can be falsified?

    poop said evolution has been proven, if evolution is a theory, then logic holds it cant be proven only disproven

  65. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:02 pm
    avie is IAB speak for avatar.
  66. Profile photo of kingdomCome
    kingdomCome Male 18-29
    338 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:02 pm
    Ok prime, I`ll adjust it, just for you.
    I contend both of us dismiss the idea of any specific god. I just dismiss one more than you. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
  67. Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:02 pm
    "poop said evolution has been proven, if evolution is a theory, then logic holds it cant be proven only disproven"

    I agree... evolution can now only be disproven... because all of the evidence suggest that it is a solid theory...

  68. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:03 pm
    "I contend both of us dismiss the idea of any specific god. I just dismiss one more than you. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

    MUCH BETTER!

  69. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:07 pm
    "poop said evolution has been proven, if evolution is a theory, then logic holds it cant be proven only disproven"

    Ah, here`s the confusion. Evolution has been proven in that it is a scientific fact. We observe evolution occur every day, both historically and in action. It`s both a fact, in that it is observed to occur, and a theory, in that the processes by which it occurs are understood.

  70. Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:12 pm
    "The fact that something can be falsified does not mean that it can be dismissed. Indeed, a scientific idea MUST be able to be falsified, else it cannot become a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Case in point- Intelligent Design/Creationism."

    DOn`t you ever say that ID is science. It is a disgrace to the scientific community to put it in the same category as a theory. DO you have any idea what a theory means? You need a crapload of proof, theory is a word scientist use with reverence. ID is not a theory, it is not recognized at a theory by a scientific community. It is a joke.
    Science: "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"
    No proof, no observation, no experimentation. ID is not nor will it ever be a theory until someone proves something or conducts even one tangible experiment. I respect people`s decision to follow blind faith, but leave science alone. Religion has held back scientific

  71. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:14 pm
    " You need a crapload of proof, theory is a word scientist use with reverence. ID is not a theory, it is not recognized at a theory by a scientific community. It is a joke."

    What do you people have against psychodynamics?
    I find Adlers work very thought provoking and interesting. Screw the advanced testing

  72. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:18 pm
    "What do you people have against psychodynamics?
    I find Adlers work very thought provoking and interesting. Screw the advanced testing"

    Intelligent Design is not psychodynamics. It`s Creationism re-labeled and masquerading as science. And teaching it in science class as the origin of life in unscientific, unconstitutional, and driven purely by religious motives of those too inept to adapt their faith to fit the facts.

    Sydust- I was using Creationism/ID as an example of something that violates those rules and is therefore not science. Check out my previous posts.

  73. Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:22 pm
    "I was using Creationism/ID as an example of something that violates those rules and is therefore not science. Check out my previous posts."

    Sorry, I`m tired. My point is still the same though. People holding back scientific progress by forcing their own ideas on the general public just really pushes a button for me.

  74. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:30 pm
    "Sorry, I`m tired. My point is still the same though. People holding back scientific progress by forcing their own ideas on the general public just really pushes a button for me."

    I sympathize one hundred percent. It especially galls me that these... people can attempt to hide their ideas by pretending that they are science, when the issue is so transparently one of religion or at best politics. Still, they can use the uninformed masses for support, no matter how irrational they may be in the eyes of the educated.

  75. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:42 pm
    In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." That`s why things like evolution or gravity are merely theories.
  76. Profile photo of don11817
    don11817 Male 30-39
    86 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:46 pm
    Wow. You need to learn the scientific method.
    1. First you must observe and begin the inductive process to help identify problems
    2. Identify the problem. These problems are presented as THEORIES and are in the form of a question
    3. Set goals or achievements you hope to attain in solving the problem
    4. Gather evidence to support your theory
    5. Generate a list of logical solutions based on the evidence you`ve obtained
    6. Evaluate the evidence to narrow down your range of solutions
    7. Make an educated guess (hypothesis), it`s your choice of the most-likely-to-be-successful solution from the list of contending ones which you have evaluated
    8. Challenge the hypothesis to make sure it withstands the vigor of any other possible solution
    9. Reach a conclusion. If your hypothesis passes the important tests, including attempts to falsify - you have reached your conclusion.
    10. Suspend judgment. Do not fall in love with your final hypothesis
    11. Take Action
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:47 pm
    There is a lot of proof for ID. ID is NOT creationism, Several ID people do not believe in God. In fact ID doesn`t cite God as the source of the intelligence involved in the designs of life.
    The source of intelligence has even been suggested as extraterrestrial. Ya, I know what your thinking. He`s a cook talking about little green men. No, There has been the theory of exogenesis, Aka panspermia, For quite awhile now.

    Pangenesis, As a theory, Is dying. More and more researchers are seeing evidence of things that could not have just invented themselves. The probabilities of spontaneous genetic mutation resulting in something useful and beneficial are astronomic (on the scale of winning the state lottery everyday for a year, one ticket per day)

  • Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:48 pm
    "Wow. You need to learn the scientific method.
    1. First you must observe and begin the inductive process to help identify problems
    2. Identify the problem. These problems are presented as THEORIES and are in the form of a question
    3. Set goals or achievements you hope to attain in solving the
    9. Reach a conclusion. If your hypothesis passes the important tests, including attempts to falsify - you have reached your conclusion.
    10. Suspend judgment. Do not fall in love with your final hypothesis"

    11. ?????
    12. PROFIT!
    11. Take Action

  • Profile photo of don11817
    don11817 Male 30-39
    86 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:52 pm
    If the "theory of evolution" has not made it past stage 2 in the scientific method, how can if be fact?

    At best, in a linear, closed mind that will not allow parallel thought, it makes it to stage 7, which is still a hypothesis or potential solution to the problem. In no way has the "theory of evolution" made it past this stage. It is not provable beyond any reasonable doubt to be true and the only possible conclusion-- therefore when it is presented as "fact" the person presenting the information has violated step 10 of the scientific method and suspended judgment.

    Eliminate the emotion wrapped up in this theory, and it remains, only a theory. It`s when emotion gets involved that people look beyond the science and claim it as fact...

  • Profile photo of don11817
    don11817 Male 30-39
    86 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:57 pm
    Primetimekin, Stage 11, "Take action" usually refers to presenting the final hypothesis and supporting data for peer review in the form of reports or submissions to scientific journals. I ran out of character space in that post so wasn`t able to complete stage 11`s description....
  • Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 6:58 pm
    ID is Creationism read up on Dover vs Board of Education CrackerJak
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:02 pm
    Evolutionists are not living up to Stage 8.

    Any hypothesis needs to withstand, and even invite challenges.

    They`ve also have violated stages 9 and 10 by turning evolution into it`s own sort of theology.

    As Prime has noted they also profit from evolutionary theory, So any challenge to it is met with knee-jerk reactionism.

  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:05 pm
    madest: Just because some creationists wanted ID taught in schools doesn`t mean ID is creationism any more than evolutionists are eugenicists (aka Nazis).
  • Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:08 pm
    "Primetimekin, Stage 11, "Take action" usually refers to presenting the final hypothesis and supporting data for peer review in the form of reports or submissions to scientific journals. I ran out of character space in that post so wasn`t able to complete stage 11`s description...."

    I actually copy-pasted incorrectly...
    should have read:
    12. ????
    13. PROFIT!

  • Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:09 pm
    "There is a lot of proof for ID."
    Show me one scrap of evidence for ID. Show me research of observable phenomena that is based upon more than `evolution couldn`t explain this so aliens or god must be responsible`. Show me anything really based on more than searching for flaws in evolution. Really. I want to see this.
    See, I don`t go around believing anything I hear. I like to have evidence before forming opinions and accepting ideas. I have again and again seen SCIENTISTS invoke the scientific method to time and again show me that evolution is more than a theory, but the most likely and possible explanation for how we came to be. What tells me that evolution is correct is the evidence and the proof that seems to keep showing up, silly things like fossil records and modern day examples of evolution.
    ID has never provided anything like evidence, therefore it`s not science and it cannot be a theory.
  • Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:12 pm
    yeah... take that madest

    ...no one ever profited, pillaged, raped, killed, murdered or exploited because of religion...

  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:16 pm
    Sydust: I have a feeling a stack of books filled with proof wouldn`t be enough for you, But there are ample resources on the internet.

    This being just one.

  • Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:19 pm
    "ID is creationism any more than evolutionists are eugenicists (aka Nazis)"
    That is so incredibly offensive. Please don`t compare people to nazis. Leave those hate-mongering bastards out of this. Invoking their name just serves to add fear to the mix instead of looking at the facts.
  • Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:21 pm
    CrakrJak ID is creationism renamed. It was proven in court. You`re spinning the outcome to make ID seem something it is not. If in fact ID had a "scientist" able to prove that ID was indeed a form of "science" then they may have had a case.
  • Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:23 pm
    Besides "Intelligent Design" is not intelligent.
  • Profile photo of Rhasputin
    Rhasputin Female 18-29
    112 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:24 pm
    I love these arguments. :3
    I suggest everyone here, go look up the user "Thunder f00t" on youtube, and see his "Why people laugh at creationists" series. (:
  • Profile photo of don11817
    don11817 Male 30-39
    86 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:25 pm
    Hyperspectra--I really hope that was sarcasm or a joke. Religion is the #1 reason for people doing most of the things you listed.

    I believe there is a creator. I believe that this creator presents itself around us and we can see a glimmer of it in everything. Am I religious? Let`s define Religion now:

    The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system," but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.

    Now that being said, NO. I have personal convictions, but do not hold to a religious system. I have personal beliefs, but I do not practice rituals nor do I lean on it as a crutch. I have not tossed aside reason or science. I look at things in a different way than some scientists will allow in their o

  • Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:27 pm
    and why are these arguments always between someone on the east coast and a hayseed in the midwest?
  • Profile photo of don11817
    don11817 Male 30-39
    86 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:28 pm
    Continued: --their own thought processes. But, that fits into Stage 5 of the scientific method nicely, as I look at things from a broader, less linear thought process. Closed-mindedness will limit the boundaries of science, not broaden them...
  • Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:29 pm
    "This being just one."
    Okay, so I reviewed he website.
    First of all, please send a reputable source next time. Who is R. Totten? If you do know who that is, please let me know because I usually don`t trust internet sources with a strange name attached to the beginning who I don`t know if its a guy in his underwear wearing a tinfoil hat or a professor.
    Second, did you read this before sending it? It looks science-y and nice, but in the end, it once again only says that the improbability of everything looking so nice an neat proves that something intelligent has to be involved.
    This is not an experiment, this is not evidence. This is once again putting forth probabilities.
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:33 pm
    Sydust, madest: You`re both being intellectually lazy on this issue. The reason no one from the ID community wanted involved in that court case is because it was lead by creationists.

    Again ID is NOT creationism.

    Please read.

  • Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:35 pm
    CrakrJak
    interesting read.

    It is completely a different perspective than the traditional biblical use.

    it mentions the cosmic limit law of chance... in summary, (correct me if I`m wrong), chancing the cosmos`s existance as 1^121,

    even if it was 1^100000000, why do we feel that there must automatically be some designer behind it, instead of accepting it is just as probable as every other permutation?

    There are research articles that I have used in programming genetic algorithms that demonstrate that even adding junk interon data into the mix (non functional, and non informational), improves the efficiency of the evolutionary process dramatically...

    I will digest this link more... it isn`t something you can read and intelligently comment on in 5 mins.

  • Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:35 pm
    "Eliminate the emotion wrapped up in this theory, and it remains, only a theory."

    A theory is an idea that has been tested, repeated, and never found wanting. You`ve confused a hypothesis with a theory, which is rather like confusing bills and laws. This is a rather glaring error that any high-school student should be able to point out.

    "In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." That`s why things like evolution or gravity are merely theories."

    I was taught that a fact is an objective observation of an event. Where are you getting this definition from?

  • Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:36 pm
    don11817
    Yeah it was completely sarcastic...

    I was wondering if it was clear enough!

  • Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:36 pm
    nonsense crakrjak. nobody was involved with ID because it was creationism. you act as if ID has been around for eons. It has not it was invented because creationsism couldn`t be taught in schools.
  • Profile photo of don11817
    don11817 Male 30-39
    86 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:37 pm
    And why is it that the guy on the east coast always thinks he`s smarter than someone in the mid-west? Colorado here. One of the largest technological centers of the US---but we`re hayseeds... Remember that when you type into your IBM PC based computer made probably by HP with maybe a Maxtor or Seagate HD and transmitted via Linksys or Cisco--OOPS-- all of which are based within 10 miles of my house... Sorry, Hayseeds make the tech, I forgot...
  • Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:37 pm
    "Sydust, madest: You`re both being intellectually lazy on this issue. The reason no one from the ID community wanted involved in that court case is because it was lead by creationists.

    Again ID is NOT creationism. "

    All you are proposing is a different form of abiogenesis. Richard Dawkins even stated that panspermia is a possible origin of abiogenesis. But your idea is very different from the I-dunno-so-God-did-it approach taken by the majority of ID proponents.

  • Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:37 pm
    Sydust is correct though...

    even improbability doesn`t mean that you can turn around and say... see it is proof that there must be ID... that is inference... you haven`t proved that ID is the only possibility.

  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:40 pm
    madest: "and why are these arguments always between someone on the east coast and a hayseed in the midwest?"

    Non condescension there, Too bad it doesn`t apply.
    I have a college degree and an IQ of 150 avg of 6 different tests.

    I`m betting the "Religious Nut" accusation will follow soon. Yet you and Sydust have a deathgrip on your evolutionary theology, That`s what is nutty. Keep an open mind and you`ll learn more.

  • Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:41 pm
    So basically, the link you just sent proved my point. I quote, "When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified)."
    This is the only `evidence` they seem to go after and the only thing they try and prove. Probability. If probability was the only basis for a scientific theory, then can you imagine what other kinds of theories out there we would allow? It`s like saying, the odds are so low that anyone would win the lottery, that it must be fixed and a winner chosen by an unseen person.
    Don`t kid yourself, ID and creationism are the same things. ID is just cleaned up to look pretty so people can try to force religion upon kids in a public setting. Look at its history, ID `evolved` (if you`ll allow me to use that term) from creationism. Saying they aren`t the same thing
  • Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:42 pm
    "your evolutionary theology"

    If you seriously think that a scientific idea can be a religion then I call bull on your supposed IQ.

  • Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:42 pm
    crackrjak
    the key flaw with the link you provided is that if time is infinite than the probability of something that is 1^100000000000000 to occur, is one. on an infinite series of plays every physically possible outcome, no matter how unlikely, will occur at least once.
  • Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:45 pm
    I`ve read your posts over the past few months crakrjak. i don`t care what your education is. You`re typical midwest demographics. You`re a god fearing republican who thinks Obama is a sleeper cell terrorist. You think Iraq was a good war and George Bush kept us safe. You are the epitome of midwestern hackery.
  • Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:48 pm
    "I have a college degree and an IQ of 150 avg of 6 different tests.
    I`m betting the "Religious Nut" accusation will follow soon. Yet you and Sydust have a deathgrip on your evolutionary theology, That`s what is nutty. Keep an open mind and you`ll learn more."

    I like how in that post you
    1. insulted us
    2. put forth a superficial display of somehow saying that an IQ makes you automatically right (you have no way of gauging our IQ btw, for all you know our IQ could be higher, but your inflated sense of self assumes we are dumber for having a different opinion)
    3. Somehow twisted yourself into a victim, though I certainly have yet to attack you, by saying were gonna call you a Religious Nut

    Also, calling evolution theology is insulting. It`s a scientific theory. Theology is based on faith, not evidence like evolution is.

  • Profile photo of don11817
    don11817 Male 30-39
    86 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:49 pm
    "If you seriously think that a scientific idea can be a religion then I call bull on your supposed IQ."

    LOL. You don`t think there are zealots in science who in order to save face will not under ANY circumstance admit when they are wrong? This is exactly WHY rule #10 of the Scientific method exists. There are may people so in love with the hypothesis (that is truly all it ever can be) of evolution, that they will distort or eliminate any evidence that does not fit the theoretical time-line or into their agenda to forward an hypothesis as a fact.

  • Profile photo of hyperspectre
    hyperspectre Male 18-29
    27 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:49 pm
    crakrjak,
    I have 2 degrees and am doing a masters in financial maths.
    I could write a program that could get 200 on any IQ tests... therefore, does that mean it can more intelligently contribute to a discussion on life the universe and everything, than you?
  • Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:51 pm
    "LOL. You don`t think there are zealots in science who in order to save face will not under ANY circumstance admit when they are wrong?"

    Sure I do. They`re devoted to certain concepts and ideas, but that doesn`t make it a religion! Are zealous republicans devoted to the theology of republicanism? Are zealous vegetarians devoted to the theology of vegetarianism?

    Don`t just throw around words. They have meaning that you seem to blithely ignore.

  • Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:52 pm
    I`m not impressed by anyones education or IQ. Afterall how many Harvard PHD`s and Yale MBA`s does it take to destroy the worlds economy?
  • Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:53 pm
    " There are may people so in love with the hypothesis (that is truly all it ever can be) of evolution"

    Except for the fossil record, and antibacterial vaccines (You get your shots, right?), and the Luria-Delbruck experiment, and so on...

  • Profile photo of SuperSmash
    SuperSmash Male 18-29
    3758 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:54 pm
    Has anyone read The Language of God by Francis Collins? He was the lead scientist on the Human Genome Project and is a very faithful person. The whole book describes, in his opinion, why faith and science can coexist. Y`all (yes, I`m Southen) should read it and get along.

    Can one have faith and not believe in some sort of intelligent design? To think that God had no role in our existence would be to think there is no God. If there is a god, he had to have something to do with it.

    Or did He come from the Big Bang?

  • Profile photo of don11817
    don11817 Male 30-39
    86 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:54 pm
    I happen to agree with the video in at least one area--it is a SOCIAL issue. Because, if evolution is true, then people are no more than mere animals and society can treat them as such--part of the agenda here. It changes codes of ethics and morality drastically if there is no difference between a man and a ape. It gives everyone the freedom to select which moral compass they choose to follow with no sense of an external judgment. So yes, the fight here is about social issues, greater than anything else. Ask yourselves, why do you NEED evolution to be true?
  • Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:55 pm
    "Can one have faith and not believe in some sort of intelligent design?"

    Sure! You can believe that God put us all here on Earth if you like. But please, don`t try and deny that well-established scientific processes occur, and PLEASE don`t try to sell your philosophy in science class.

    Really, that`s all we`re asking for here.

  • Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:56 pm
    "I happen to agree with the video in at least one area--it is a SOCIAL issue. Because, if evolution is true, then people are no more than mere animals and society can treat them as such--part of the agenda here. It changes codes of ethics and morality drastically if there is no difference between a man and a ape. It gives everyone the freedom to select which moral compass they choose to follow with no sense of an external judgment. So yes, the fight here is about social issues, greater than anything else. Ask yourselves, why do you NEED evolution to be true? "

    How about the fact that societal evolution provides us with morals that ancient and easily-twisted texts cannot?

  • Profile photo of don11817
    don11817 Male 30-39
    86 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:56 pm
    Catbarf-- I never called it religion-- I called them zealots-- which is awful close to religious-- but I think you are confusing me with the other "hayseed" lol
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:56 pm
    madest: "nonsense crakrjak. nobody was involved with ID because it was creationism. you act as if ID has been around for eons. It has not it was invented because creationsism couldn`t be taught in schools".

    That is flat out false, You know nothing about how the idea of ID came about. It came from scientists writing papers, Most became peer reviewed, Then published. After they were published the Darwinists went on the attack, Falsely claiming these were creationist attempts to thwart evolution.

    The scientists that have found these inexplicable natural oddities, That have no trace of evolutionary process, Have no theological training or purpose. They simply pointed out their direct observations for purposes of research.

    This was years before the Kansas school board case. You`re saying the case came first then the ID science came after, That`s either and outright lie or an ignorant statement.

  • Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:57 pm
    "That is flat out false, You know nothing about how the idea of ID came about. It came from scientists writing papers, Most became peer reviewed, Then published. "

    Name some.

  • Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 7:58 pm
    "The scientists that have found these inexplicable natural oddities, That have no trace of evolutionary process, Have no theological training or purpose. They simply pointed out their direct observations for purposes of research."

    Even supposing this weren`t made up, finding something that couldn`t have evolved is in no way proof for ID.

  • Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:01 pm
    "Can one have faith and not believe in some sort of intelligent design?"

    I think you bring up a very interesting question, one people have been asking themselves for over a century.

    Personally, as a humanistic Jew, I really don`t care if there is a god or not. Being a jew, I don`t believe in hell so if there is a god, it`s no skin off my nose.

    But for others, I think there can be a relation there, a compromise. People simply have to open their eyes and stop believing anything they want because their mind only sees one possibility. God could be more of a watchful eye, gently interacting with humans and maybe seeing that the first seed of life popped out of the ocean. Each of the seven days could represent millions of years.

    We don`t have to be close minded, we can evolve our ideas and try to understand nature rather than rejecting what is not convenient.

  • Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:03 pm
    "Don`t kid yourself, ID and creationism are the same things. "

    "Afterall how many Harvard PHD`s and Yale MBA`s does it take to destroy the worlds economy?"

    Greenspan went to NYU

  • Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:05 pm
    No CrakrJak. Dover vs Board of education. Read it. Learn something.
  • Profile photo of SuperSmash
    SuperSmash Male 18-29
    3758 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:06 pm
    Catbarf (funny name by the way), you can`t just start with when life began on Earth. What about the billions of years before that? Did God have nothing to do with the beginning of time? Before the Big Bang what existed? Nothing? You can`t make something out of nothing.

    So you`re saying it`s okay to believe there was intelligent design in the cosmos, but not in the development of life?

    Don`t get me wrong, I know I have no answers whatsoever.

  • Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:06 pm
    "No CrakrJak. Dover vs Board of education. Read it. Learn something."

    So your basing a philosophical idea.... on a legal court case?

  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:06 pm
    Sydust: "..calling evolution theology is insulting. It`s a scientific theory. Theology is based on faith, not evidence like evolution is."

    #1 Are you saying you don`t have faith in evolution ?
    Evolutionists certainly do cling to the theory as though it is a religion, Complete with heretics they want burned at the stake.

    #2 I was insulted first, Don`t fire a shot at me and I won`t fire back ok ?

    #3 You`re stuck on cementing ID and creationism as the same thing when I`ve given substantial evidence to the contrary. Which I`m betting you having even bothered to look at, Thus the "Intellectually lazy" moniker fits.

  • Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:09 pm
    No "scientists" are involved in ID. It`s the equivalent of not knowing the answer and giving up.
  • Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:15 pm
    "Are you saying you don`t have faith in evolution?"
    Here`s the thing about the word faith. Its actual definition and its connotation are two different things. Do I have faith in evolution? Only in that I believe it to be true. You know what else I have faith in? Gravity. That it takes 248 Earth years for Pluto to orbit the sun. Am I religiously clinging to these ideas though they can only be proven mathematically? NO, but my faith is based upon evidence laid before me.

    "when I`ve given substantial evidence to the contrary. Which I`m betting you having even bothered to look at, Thus the "Intellectually lazy" moniker fits."
    So are you choosing to ignore my responses to both of the links you provided, the links which I read and commented on? PLease don`t act like I`m talking out of my ass and refuse to read what you provided. I read and responded to both links.

  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:17 pm
    catbarf: "...finding something that couldn`t have evolved is in no way proof for ID."

    If something couldn`t have evolved on it`s own, Then it came from somewhere else. Where did these non evolutionary things come from ? Thin air ?
    A flagellum motor for example didn`t mutate from a hair follicle, It`s too distinct and complex.
    Considering it took human beings thousands of years to "invent" the same thing (Not even knowing what a flagellum motor was) It suggests an intelligence designed it.

  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:21 pm
    madest: "No "scientists" are involved in ID. It`s the equivalent of not knowing the answer and giving up."

    Now I know you`re just a troll.

    Many Phd scientists are involved in ID theory.

  • Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:22 pm
    You`re logic makes no sense CrakrJak. You have no theory other than to put down a "scientific theory" (which you don`t even understand the meaning of) there`s more chance of a bunny rabbit laying colorful eggs once a year than there is any such thing as "Intelligent" design.
  • Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:22 pm
    "suggests an intelligence designed it"
    suggests but does not prove. There is never any proof presented, just speculation based on probabilities.
    LIsten, I am not saying intelligent design is wrong, I`m saying that there is no evidence beyond improbabilities(which is not actually evidence). I just don`t want something that is not science presented as science.
  • Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:22 pm
    Many? I bet you can`t name one.
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:25 pm
    Sydust: "So are you choosing to ignore my responses to both of the links you provided, the links which I read and commented on?"

    Your remarks on them are evident that you barely even glanced at them then dismissed them outright without cognition.

  • Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:31 pm
    "Your remarks on them are evident that you barely even glanced at them then dismissed them outright without cognition."
    I`m sorry my responses didn`t adequately reflect what I was trying to say. Rest assured, I did indeed read them both thoroughly. I thought about them, and posted what I considered to be a reasonable response. At this point I can see that as long as I don`t agree with you I am labeled as lazy, intellectually inferior, and a theological drone to evolution. Not once have I thrown an insult your way, and I all my attempts to put my ideas and evidence forward were met not with further explanations and discussion but with more attacks and accusations of religion and laziness.
    I`m disappointed is all, and I can see now that you are not capable of holding a scientific and intellectual conversation over merit.
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:44 pm
    madest: I`ll give you two, If you weren`t so lazy you`d know of them.

    Stephen C. Meyer Phd.
    Douglas Axe Phd

    One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed.

  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 8:56 pm
    Sydust: I could see you were closed-minded from the beginning, Not shocked that you feel offended at me pointing that out.

    One court case doesn`t mean ID = creationism.

    The ID community doesn`t care about the social issue of local school boards with a creationist agenda. That`s why they declined to involve themselves in it. Instead they are concerned with the science and research.

    Your rigid instance on the issue marches right in lockstep with those that want the idea of ID expunged from the planet... That is fascism. (a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control)

  • Profile photo of SuperSmash
    SuperSmash Male 18-29
    3758 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 9:01 pm
    Whoa...Whoa...CrakrJak, ease up. I think if you read Sydust`s last response and had an open-mind to what she said, you would realize that she has considered your position and is still against it. Sometimes people won`t agree with you. That doesn`t make them wrong or ignorant or close minded.

    It`s amazing how often people who call themselves "open-minded" are only open to those who agree with them.

  • Profile photo of aznclueless
    aznclueless Male 18-29
    329 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 9:03 pm
    *insert 1000 character flame response here*
  • Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 9:05 pm
    So you do ignore what I have been saying, like when I said, "I am not saying intelligent design is wrong, I`m saying that there is no evidence beyond improbabilities"
    Listen, you obviously don`t know what you`re talking about. The Kansas board of education allowed intelligent design in schools, a big supporter of which was the discovery institute, an intelligent design center. They obviously do want a piece of the childrens` education.

    I like how you continue to accuse me of being close-minded rather than answer my questions and trying to have an intellectual discussion to convince me.

  • Profile photo of Sydust
    Sydust Female 13-17
    39 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 9:07 pm
    Oh, and I have to sleep now, so further responses are not a forfeit on my part, but the tired eyelids of a loooong day ^-^
    Syd out!
  • Profile photo of Barnk
    Barnk Male 30-39
    486 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 9:16 pm
    Couldn`t someone have picked a better video with which to open up the EvC floodgates? That guy didn`t have much of a point. Horrible tie, too.
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 9:32 pm
    Sydust: "I am not saying intelligent design is wrong, I`m saying that there is no evidence beyond improbabilities"

    I`ve given evidence, You`ve skimmed over it and rejected it out of hand.

    All the discovery institute did was give some books to the school. They did not lend support to the legal case. I`ve read the case several times.

  • Profile photo of Negative_One
    Negative_One Male 30-39
    2583 posts
    March 17, 2009 at 10:33 pm
    That guy evolved from a walrus.
  • Profile photo of teph2112
    teph2112 Male 13-17
    650 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 2:06 am
    I guess the ultimate question is...
    What exactly IS a designer?
    How does a three-year old`s scribbles differ from a professional architect`s work?
  • Profile photo of ESQUEIRO
    ESQUEIRO Male 30-39
    134 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 2:19 am
    I love how people get so uptight and give boring assed comments with fake philosophical depth. hooray for basement e-tards.
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 3:09 am
    "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Charles Darwin

    There are several molecular machines that are irreducibly complex, and evolutionists go berserk at the mere mention of them. Why ? Because it threatens their entire worldview and livelihood.

    These machines need instructions to be built, millions of them. Even the simplest of cells need not only DNA but the instructions to make them, and the other molecular machines to assemble translate, assemble, fold, and move them around.

    This is akin to an entire car factory being built in place entirely on it`s own, Complete with blueprints and workers, All at once and without some intelligence guiding it.

    That is statistically impossible, Yet evolutionists believe it as fact.

  • Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 3:10 am
    "So you`re saying it`s okay to believe there was intelligent design in the cosmos, but not in the development of life?"

    No, I`m saying it`s okay to believe that there was intelligent design anywhere you see fit, so long as you accept that it`s not scientific and don`t try to force it in science class.

    "If something couldn`t have evolved on it`s own, Then it came from somewhere else. Where did these non evolutionary things come from ? Thin air ? "

    Do you have the faintest idea of how science works? Just because one idea doesn`t hold up doesn`t automagically verify another. It could be found that evolution is impossible, but that would never be proof for ID. It would only be proof that evolution is false and we need to find a new hypothesis.

    You don`t want to objectively search for an answer, you want to simply say `Too complex, I give up, God did it.`

    I find it telling that you fail to name any scientist or peer-reviewed journal associated with ID.

  • Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 3:13 am
    "This is akin to an entire car factory being built in place entirely on it`s own, Complete with blueprints and workers, All at once and without some intelligence guiding it."

    No, it`s actually a statistical inevitability. When you start with the simplest life, the chance of it becoming more complex over millions of generations of imperfect replication is 1. You seem to think that cells have always been as complex as they are today.

    Isn`t it funny how almost every organ which was supposed to be irreducibly complex has been explained? Try reading up on the human eye.

  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 5:22 am
    catbarf: "No, it`s actually a statistical inevitability. When you start with the simplest life, the chance of it becoming more complex over millions of generations of imperfect replication is 1. You seem to think that cells have always been as complex as they are today."

    The simplest cell was supposedly the "earliest form of life". What I`m saying is that even that couldn`t have been built on it`s own, Without the first cell there is no natural selection, no replication, no chance of mutations, imperfections, or anything else.

    This isn`t "Which came first, The chicken or the egg". This "Which came first, The cell or the cellular machines ?"

    Darwin said that evolution didn`t make large leaps, but small slow steps. The irreducibly complex mechanisms are not large leaps.. They are more like rocket launches into space. The gaps between evolutionary examples are that immense.

  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 5:25 am
    catbarf: "No, it`s actually a statistical inevitability."

    That`s like saying a trillion chimpanzees all typing 24/7 at random would eventually type Shakespeare`s Hamlet. That`s a fallacious argument.

  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 5:34 am
    catbarf: "You don`t want to objectively search for an answer, you want to simply say `Too complex, I give up, God did it.`"

    No ID scientist claims to know what the source of intelligence is, As I`ve stated previously.

    "I find it telling that you fail to name any scientist or peer-reviewed journal associated with ID."

    There are several books and papers on the subject, Many were peer reviewed before the evolutionists, Decided to autocratically dismiss them as scientific heresy. They hurriedly cobbled together counter-arguments and blacklisted anyone that dared challenge the status quo. And I`ve given ample resources here as evidence.

  • Profile photo of Red5TheFinn
    Red5TheFinn Male 13-17
    1556 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 6:03 am
    CrakrJak,
    See that sign on the front page?
    It says DON`T FEED THE TROLL
    And by now you`ve given him seven slices of salomi, 41 soda crackers and a fine bottle of shiraz!
  • Profile photo of paleopoet
    paleopoet Female 18-29
    23 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 9:26 am
    This is so true. It`s totally a cultural issue, all of the things he lists are. I <3 biological anthropology. This guy is my new official hero.

    Evolution is part of life, the idea that it is not true really cannot be argued if you have any concept of biology. Cells mutate. I don`t think there is one reputable scientist in existence that will argue evolution. The evidence surrounds us in our everyday lives. The biggest example that you always hear about on the news or from your doctor is that you can`t keep taking the same antibiotic or eventually the bacteria will become immune to it: that`s evolution people!
    We really need to just drop the issue, because to me it`s old and annoying. Let there be a common ground...
    Creationists: what`s wrong with the idea of God creating evolution?
    Evolutionists: what the hell is wrong with letting them think that?

  • Profile photo of Boredx12
    Boredx12 Female 13-17
    1654 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 11:45 am
    tbh I dont care either way.
    I reckon evolution is most likely, but as far as Im concerned we`re here SOMEhow and Im not gonna waste too much time worrying about how we came to be.
  • Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 11:52 am
    CrakrJak, I`ve read a lot of the material from Behe, and I`ve read a lot of the ID ideas. You`re missing some important ideas here.

    1. Evolution is a theory, and as a theory, it`s basically a framework of the idea. It`s not a generalized equation that spits out answers. Your claims about irreducibility, of which Behe`s best example was the eye, were refuted last year by an article which showed a possible evolution path for the eye. (Here`s a pbs video article: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...

    Now, you can then go and say, "well okay you may have found that one, well what about this one?", but we found the answer to one, and have no real interest in letting ID drive our research direction until we may not be able to find an answer in the fossil record and ID goes `OOH OOH SEE I WAS RIGHT!`.

  • Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 12:00 pm
    2. The claims made by ID are not testable. You won`t be able to run a test and receive the same results. That means by definition that it`s claims have no reliability. Claims made by ID cannot be used to predict. That means that by definition that it`s claims have no validity. Without reliability and validity, you DON`T HAVE science.
  • Profile photo of NowPleaseRea
    NowPleaseRea Male 70 & Over
    176 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 2:39 pm
    There is no debate between the science of evolution and the creationists.
    It`s just the religious activists squawking out loud to themselves.
  • Profile photo of jackarse
    jackarse Male 18-29
    1 post
    March 18, 2009 at 3:19 pm
    We have recorded solid evidence of creatures evolving. I laugh at the creationists that rigidly believe in purely creation.

    When people finally realize there is no theory that describes the origins of artificial species other than intelligent design, I will be laughing at them too. There is no repeatable evidence? We have been doing intelligent design for nearly a decade. Mostly simple single celled organisms, but intelligent design regardless has existed for as long as gene splicing and the likes. If you don`t think gene splicing quite cuts it, then do consider in another few centuries, we will probably be redesigning ourselves from scratch as well as all our other favorite species.

    The main rejection of ID I feel is very much cultural. Soon, when it is nearing daily life and the creation of artificial sentience, I think it may be an ethical dilemma as well.

    CrackrJak, I admire crusaders, but you may be going overkill.

  • Profile photo of keith2
    keith2 Male 30-39
    2591 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 3:33 pm
    There is not ONE person my age or near my generation who ever felt threatened by Hillary Clinton in a pant suit. Only the older generations seem to throw a fit about it. We simply don`t feel that way about a woman taking a traditionally male role.
  • Profile photo of britt566
    britt566 Female 18-29
    2290 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 9:49 pm
    BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. Does it really matter how we got here?
  • Profile photo of britt566
    britt566 Female 18-29
    2290 posts
    March 18, 2009 at 9:51 pm
    Why fight about how we came to be when you could be doing more important things...
  • Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    March 21, 2009 at 7:01 am
    I`m not going to bother reading the previous comments because I just want to say that there is no such thing as a `theological` argument. Theology is just a small facet of what we collectively call culture and it makes more sense to think of theology in those terms.
  • Leave a Reply