Does Intelligent Design Seek to Undo Modern Science?

Jul 13, 2008 Full story: Discover 96

Biologist Kenneth Miller thinks so. published online July 11, 2008 The proponents of Intelligent Design seek nothing less than a true scientific revolution, an uprising of the first order that would do a great ...

Full Story
charlieb1950

Boone, NC

#61 Jul 31, 2008
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Madame/Mr. charlieb1950, pardon me for saying this, but NO alternative hypothesis, let alone theory, has been forthcoming. After years of requests for REAL scientific evidence and valid, verifiable scientific research, NO ONE on the "creationism/ID" side of the debate, including YOU, have ever been able to come up with anything.
All that we seem to get are arguments from incredulity, irrelevant Biblical passages and insults.
Hardly convincing and more likely damaging to "fundamentalist christianity" than it is to science.
So we are to take your theory of evolution at face value?Can you prove that god did not open the red ses ,for the israilites?No you can not.CAN you prove that GOD does not exist?NO you cannot.Can you prove the theory of evolution?No you cannot.This is becoming a standoff.But its fun ,let us continue.
MIDutch

Hartford, MI

#62 Jul 31, 2008
charlieb1950 wrote:
<quoted text>So we are to take your theory of evolution at face value?Can you prove that god did not open the red ses ,for the israilites?No you can not.CAN you prove that GOD does not exist?NO you cannot.Can you prove the theory of evolution?No you cannot.This is becoming a standoff.But its fun ,let us continue.
Madame/Mr. charlieb1950, so you admit that there is NO alternative scientific "theory" to the ToE?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#63 Jul 31, 2008
charlieb1950 wrote:
In other words.polly.everything just popped in existence from nothing?Physics will not agree with you on that one.And what do you mean,you do agree that there was a big bang ,do you not?And can you explain NOTHING?
Still the liar and still the moron, charlie. No one said things popped in from nothing. Once again you display a serious lack of basic understanding of ... well ... anything. Are your cognitive skills as lacking as your comprehension skills?

Polly, if you want to learn something, Charlie is not the person to listen too! There is an interesting forum on the Big Bang at http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TQJ... . Some of the people debating ask real questions rather than just making pithy comments.

And no, I am not being mean to Charlie. He's seen fit to try and insult me and when that failed he took the coward's way out and tried to insult my family. He's a pathetic little troll and even if you agree with his religious beliefs, the rest of him is decidedly unpleasant. It is not meanness when you are telling the truth.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#64 Jul 31, 2008
charlieb1950 wrote:
<quoted text>BEcause the theory you postulate could be wrong.
I am not postulating anything. I am telling you the theory that has been developed by physicist to explain the evidence that is available. Do you have a better one?

And I find your attitude toward science to be quite cynical. Every theory of science could be wrong. To take the position that you refuse to accept because it might be wrong is prescription for an end to all progress.
charlieb1950 wrote:
<quoted text>I ask yoy a question and only get ridicule.Whats wrong,cant answer the question?
PM was in no way ridiculing you. He was merely pointing out that you hold some misconceptions about the Big Bang. He is attempting to instruct you in what the theory actually says.
charlieb1950 wrote:
In other words.polly.everything just popped in existence from nothing?Physics will not agree with you on that one.And what do you mean,you do agree that there was a big bang ,do you not?And can you explain NOTHING?
First of all, charlie, since PM is about to finish his work on a PhD in physics, I do believe he has a much better grasp on physics than you do.

Second, you are not understanding what PM is saying, nor do you seem to be making any effort at understanding. You seem to be filtering everything anyone says through you mental filters, changing what they actually say into what you want to hear.
MIDutch

Hartford, MI

#65 Jul 31, 2008
As for taking the ToE at face value?

Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that the United States trails almost EVERY industrialized nation in it's math and science scores for high school students.

It would be IN THE BEST INTEREST of the United States and it's standing as a world leader in scientific and technological innovation if EVERY high school and college student took a REAL interest in learning and understanding what REAL science says about the reality of our cosmos.

The information is readily available, as never before in the history of mankind, and it behooves ANYONE, and EVERYONE, to look into the science for themselves.

For their own benefit and for the future of United States it is IMPERATIVE that they do.
The Dude

London, UK

#66 Jul 31, 2008
charlieb1950 wrote:
<quoted text>BEcause the theory you postulate could be wrong.
And the religion you postulate - could be wrong!
The Dude

London, UK

#67 Jul 31, 2008
charlieb1950 wrote:
In other words.polly.everything just popped in existence from nothing?Physics will not agree with you on that one.And what do you mean,you do agree that there was a big bang ,do you not?And can you explain NOTHING?
Uh, what does God use to "create" the universe?

How is that any different?
The Dude

London, UK

#68 Jul 31, 2008
charlieb1950 wrote:
<quoted text>So we are to take your theory of evolution at face value?Can you prove that god did not open the red ses ,for the israilites?No you can not.CAN you prove that GOD does not exist?NO you cannot.Can you prove the theory of evolution?No you cannot.This is becoming a standoff.But its fun ,let us continue.
Difference being, Charlie, is that you CAN DISprove evolution, but not God.

That's why God ain't scientific.
charlieb1950

Boone, NC

#69 Jul 31, 2008
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Madame/Mr. charlieb1950, so you admit that there is NO alternative scientific "theory" to the ToE?
YOU misunderstand me dutch.I am on record here as being against the theory of evolution.And bt the way why do you not just use toe,instead of hyping it the way you do.Hell just say toe.you know like in big toe.lmao
charlieb1950

Boone, NC

#70 Jul 31, 2008
your big toe theory does not hold water,under real scientific scrutiny.lmao!again.
MIDutch

Hartford, MI

#71 Jul 31, 2008
charlieb1950 wrote:
<quoted text>YOU misunderstand me dutch.I am on record here as being against the theory of evolution.And bt the way why do you not just use toe,instead of hyping it the way you do.Hell just say toe.you know like in big toe.lmao
madame/mr. charlieb1950, pardon me for saying this, but your answer makes NO sense. I asked you whether there is an ALTERNATIVE theory to the ToE and you respond with the above. EVERYONE knows you are "on record here as being against the theory of evolution", but that HARDLY answers my question.

Is there an ALTERNATIVE "theory" to the ToE? Yes or no? It really is a simple question with a one word answer.
MIDutch

Hartford, MI

#72 Jul 31, 2008
charlieb1950 wrote:
your big toe theory does not hold water,under real scientific scrutiny.lmao!again.
madame/mr. charlieb1950, I apologize for saying this, but your opinion of whether the ToE hods water under real scientific scrutiny is incorrect.

The ToE has successfully withstood scientific scrutiny for well over 150 years not only from biology but from a host of interrelated scientific disciplines.

On the other hand, "creationism" has never produced anything of scientific significance in 2000+ years, and ID has never produced anything to scrutinize.
The Dude

London, UK

#73 Jul 31, 2008
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
madame/mr. charlieb1950, pardon me for saying this, but your answer makes NO sense. I asked you whether there is an ALTERNATIVE theory to the ToE and you respond with the above. EVERYONE knows you are "on record here as being against the theory of evolution", but that HARDLY answers my question.
Is there an ALTERNATIVE "theory" to the ToE? Yes or no? It really is a simple question with a one word answer.
And if he wants to be REALLY helpful, he could expound on exactly what that "alternative" actually is...
MIDutch

Hartford, MI

#74 Jul 31, 2008
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, charlie, since PM is about to finish his work on a PhD in physics, I do believe he has a much better grasp on physics than you do.
Second, you are not understanding what PM is saying, nor do you seem to be making any effort at understanding. You seem to be filtering everything anyone says through you mental filters, changing what they actually say into what you want to hear.
Mr. Darwin's Stepchild, perhaps you have hit on one of the main appeals of "creationism", you can be a high school dropout, but armed with "creationism" you, too, can be "smarter" than all those "evilutionist, elitist liberalg, PhD scientists".

No work, no study, so effort required. Why waste a whole lifetime trying to understand the intricacies of the cosmos when it all boils down to "let there be light" and a few handfuls of "dust".

Get your ego stroked by other your pastor, by your "fundamentalist christian" family, by other "creationists" for parroting all those fabulously smart and convincing arguments such as self scooping poop chutes on the big boat, flowering plants running faster than dimetrodons while escaping the big flood, tectonic plates zipping around faster than a man can run, etc.

Feel good about yourself, you are smart, you are special, you are a "creationist"!
MIDutch

Hartford, MI

#75 Jul 31, 2008
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And if he wants to be REALLY helpful, he could expound on exactly what that "alternative" actually is...
It would certainly be a first. Over the course of asking for just such information on this and many other forums over the past five years or so, I have NEVER had a "creationist" offer anything other than Biblical verses, "goddidit", "problems" with the ToE, or obfuscation and insults.

I have NEVER seen anything remotely resembling a scientific argument. The closest was a lengthy discussion I had with a gentleman named Mr. YEC about John Woodmorappe's (Jan Peczkis) "feasibility" study for Noah's ark. Of course, the "feasibility" study I used to have of the USS Enterprise was more detailed and believable (it even had blueprints for goodness sake), but Mr. YEC could never seem to understand that a book long speculation about how it MIGHT be possible is still mere speculation if there is no evidence to support it. Mr. YEC seemed to think that the mere EXISTENCE of the book was evidence that everything IN the book was true.

Sounds like some Bible thumpers we know.
John

Saint Louis, MO

#76 Jul 31, 2008
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
It would certainly be a first. Over the course of asking for just such information on this and many other forums over the past five years or so, I have NEVER had a "creationist" offer anything other than Biblical verses, "goddidit", "problems" with the ToE, or obfuscation and insults.
I have NEVER seen anything remotely resembling a scientific argument. The closest was a lengthy discussion I had with a gentleman named Mr. YEC about John Woodmorappe's (Jan Peczkis) "feasibility" study for Noah's ark. Of course, the "feasibility" study I used to have of the USS Enterprise was more detailed and believable (it even had blueprints for goodness sake), but Mr. YEC could never seem to understand that a book long speculation about how it MIGHT be possible is still mere speculation if there is no evidence to support it. Mr. YEC seemed to think that the mere EXISTENCE of the book was evidence that everything IN the book was true.
Sounds like some Bible thumpers we know.
I don't think Charlie is even Bible thumping. When it comes down to it, he is showing a limited background, and in essence he says 'you can't prove your statements absolutely, so I am right.'

I believe a grace of Western thought is its openness to fact and to honest dialog. That is why China accepts our medicine along side its own traditions that extend for several millennia.

We need to tactfully (if possible) but firmly explain that this is a scientific matter and it must be considered on the scientific framework that has served us so well since the Greeks began studying geometry.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#77 Jul 31, 2008
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Mr. Darwin's Stepchild, perhaps you have hit on one of the main appeals of "creationism", you can be a high school dropout, but armed with "creationism" you, too, can be "smarter" than all those "evilutionist, elitist liberalg, PhD scientists".
No work, no study, so effort required. Why waste a whole lifetime trying to understand the intricacies of the cosmos when it all boils down to "let there be light" and a few handfuls of "dust".
Get your ego stroked by other your pastor, by your "fundamentalist christian" family, by other "creationists" for parroting all those fabulously smart and convincing arguments such as self scooping poop chutes on the big boat, flowering plants running faster than dimetrodons while escaping the big flood, tectonic plates zipping around faster than a man can run, etc.
Feel good about yourself, you are smart, you are special, you are a "creationist"!
I do think that the anti-intellectual movement in this country has a lot to do with the creationism movement. The appeal that "I'm really smarter than those elitist snobs, and I didn't have to study none neither."
charlieb1950

Gastonia, NC

#78 Nov 21, 2008
All you so called armchair scientist,look up the meaning of the word singularity.What does it mean?Absolutely nothing!zilch!Just another word that science or some idiot that has come up with.Trying to explain what created the universe.haha.How in the world can you so called armchair scientist believe in such nonsense.Now i know you are going to say but you are stupid and ignorant charle,because you do not understand what a singularity is.I looked it up to make sure just what you were talking about.Now i know that you all are full of it,simply because you cannot explain the beginning of the universe you make up words and defs. that reading them are a bunch of stupidous way way of an explanation.Fact is you do not know.

Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

#79 Nov 21, 2008
charlieb1950 wrote:
All you so called armchair scientist,look up the meaning of the word singularity.What does it mean?Absolutely nothing!zilch!Just another word that science or some idiot that has come up with.

[QUOTE]Trying to explain what created the universe.haha.How in the world can you so called armchair scientist believe in such nonsense.
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Now i know that you all are full of it,simply because you cannot explain the beginning of the universe you make up words and defs.
At the beginning the universe was a singularity. That is what the evidence points to. In this context the universe was extremely small with a nearly homogenous distribution of energy. That is what it means.

The evidence is the CMB, a predictable result of a universe that expands from a very energetic singularity.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#80 Nov 21, 2008
charlieb1950 wrote:
All you so called armchair scientist,look up the meaning of the word singularity.What does it mean?Absolutely nothing!zilch!Just another word that science or some idiot that has come up with.Trying to explain what created the universe.haha.How in the world can you so called armchair scientist believe in such nonsense.Now i know you are going to say but you are stupid and ignorant charle,because you do not understand what a singularity is.I looked it up to make sure just what you were talking about.Now i know that you all are full of it,simply because you cannot explain the beginning of the universe you make up words and defs. that reading them are a bunch of stupidous way way of an explanation.Fact is you do not know.
Nobody gives a f77k what you think, charlie.

Still blind? Why?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 min replaytime 174,445
Darwin on the rocks 53 min Dogen 99
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr polymath257 137,374
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr anonymous 117,328
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 10 hr Chimney1 653
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? Sep 27 David M 2
New Fossil Reveals Multicellular Life Evolved 6... Sep 26 TedHOhio 8

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE