Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80371 Mar 10, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
ID is ABSOLUTELY religious.
Specifically, the Judeo-Christian religion.
I know that it's associated with Christian religion...but in purest since of the concept...taking it for just what the words imply and nothing else, it basically covers all the major religions...

Actually, that's why I started using mostly "intelligent processes" instead, to avoid the confusion.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#80372 Mar 10, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that it's associated with Christian religion...but in purest since of the concept...taking it for just what the words imply and nothing else, it basically covers all the major religions...
Actually, that's why I started using mostly "intelligent processes" instead, to avoid the confusion.
Actually, it is more than 'associated' with Judeo-Christian religious dogma, it was STARTED by a desire to put the Genesis version of Creation in public schools.

From Wiki:

"Phillip E. Johnson (born June 18, 1940) is a retired UC Berkeley law professor and author. He became a born-again Christian while a tenured professor and is considered the father of the intelligent design movement. A critic of what he calls "Darwinism" and "scientific materialism", Johnson rejects evolution in favor of neocreationist views known as intelligent design. He was a co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) and is credited with establishing the wedge Strategy, which aims to change public opinion and scientific consensus, and seeks to convince the scientific community to allow a role for God in scientific theory.

Quotes from Phillip Johnson:

~~"We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."[47]

~~"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."[39]

~~"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johns...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80373 Mar 10, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
lol. I love your tiara. Are you a princess bride?
They are cheap. You can get one too.

It looks like ChiliJ will win it this week.
bohart

Newport, TN

#80374 Mar 10, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
"Proof" is for maths and alcohol. What we're interested in is facts and evidence. So again I ask how did you manage to come up with a testable hypothesis for your invisible magic Jewish wizard?
Have you came up with a testable hypothesis with repeatable results for your magical puddle of goo? If not then all you have is your faith laced personal opinion.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80375 Mar 10, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you came up with a testable hypothesis with repeatable results for your magical puddle of goo? If not then all you have is your faith laced personal opinion.
They have repeatable tests for many steps in abiogenesis. The fact that they cannot do it from scratch yet is why abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. You don't stop working on a scientific problem simply because it is not solved yet. If you followed that idiotic thought process nothing would be accomplished ever.

Of course creatards have never used their "science" to contribute anything to the world's body of knowledge so I guess they are just jealous.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#80376 Mar 10, 2013
kaplan man wrote:
People get this straight WE WHERE CREATED BY GOD IN HIS IMAGE period read the bible.
No we weren't we evolved from the great ape line....been proven just recently. Ya gotta keep up dude!

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

#80377 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is merely a poke at idiot creatards whose sense of humor is as retarded as their general thought processes. The vast majority of Jews would see the humor of it when read in context.
In other words the people who you think are the victims of that term would laugh at you and approve its use.
I don't make generalizations about what they might think or say. The term "jewmagic" is very reminiscent of nazi terminology used to described jews and I do not condone it.

"humor"?, then why use the term at all!

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#80379 Mar 11, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Likewise.
Nope don’t work like that,

You make a statement, I query it with fact, you bottle out and offer only incredulity and lies for you god

That makes you incredulous
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Thanks for that honest admission. Humans!
More of your giggling?
I am always honest, if that means admitting (and giggling) that you are a lying godbot than that’s fine with me

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80380 Mar 11, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't make generalizations about what they might think or say. The term "jewmagic" is very reminiscent of nazi terminology used to described jews and I do not condone it.
"humor"?, then why use the term at all!
If you don't condone it then don't use it.

Your reasons for not using it have so far failed.

And humor is one of the better weapons we have against creatards. They are unwilling to learn science, they are unwilling to even learn what is and is not scientific evidence. When they are that dishonest the best thing to do is to find a way to laugh at them so they know they are the butt of the joke.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80381 Mar 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they had to associate ID with religion...other wise they couldn't "debunk" it...
Actually it was the creationists themselves who associated ID with religion. They were supposed to keep it a secret but fundies can't help but shout PRAISE THE LORD at every opportunity.

Then the IDCers admitted they had no "scientific theory" of ID in the first place, so it's all moot.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80382 Mar 11, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Use of a term like "Jewmagic" ia naked antisemite bigotry.
Not really. I don't really have much of a problem with Jews. Which is why for the most part it ain't the Jews trying to push anti-scientific creationism illegally into public schools.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80383 Mar 11, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you came up with a testable hypothesis with repeatable results for your magical puddle of goo? If not then all you have is your faith laced personal opinion.
Not at all, since I'm open to abio being caused by:

1 - Natural forces

2 - Aliens

3 - God or Gods

4 - An unknown fourth alternative that no-one's thought of yet.

It's all irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.

Oh, and Harvard have a testable hypothesis. Which is why they are able to currently research it at the moment while you sit on your big fat lazy azzes pretending to know more than the scientists who work in the field.(shrug)

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#80384 Mar 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but (a) God would not be bound by Einstein's equations, as it would exist in some sort of multiverse (heaven perhaps?) while making our universe, and perhaps others. Scientists already suspect that if other universes exist they could have different laws of physics at play in each. And as for evolution having no direction, well that's not a problem either. God could either be guiding it in a manner we're unaware of, or it could simply be playing dice.
Of course the nature of (a) God is still nothing more than philosophical speculation and can't be considered scientific until the fundies manage to come up with a falsifiable concept.
Two argument here

1/ Who says a god would not be bound by the physical laws that make up a particular universe. If such an entity is present in this universe then is must, by the nature of those laws be bound by those laws.

2/ My argument has always been that E=MC^2 proves that no omnipotent entity as described in Revelations 19:6 (KJV) can exist in this universe.

In both arguments this universe is the only one that counts as far as humanity is concerned. As you say, if other universes exists the laws that govern them may be different.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80385 Mar 11, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't make generalizations about what they might think or say. The term "jewmagic" is very reminiscent of nazi terminology used to described jews and I do not condone it.
"humor"?, then why use the term at all!
That's a rather silly thing to say, especially since the Nazi's had "God is with us" embossed on their belt buckles. So since their beliefs ultimately have their roots in Jewish theology also, if we had a Nazi creationist on here spouting fundie BS too I would also be pointing out that they too were invoking invisible Jewish magic. Which would then pish him off as he would presume I was lumping him in with the Jews that he hates so much.

And I would laugh at him for both his foolish bigotry and foolish claims.

And for the record, I don't recall anything in my history books about the Nazi's making fun of Jews because they believe in invisible Jewmagic.

So uh, it's superwilly and no balls, is that it?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80386 Mar 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Two argument here
1/ Who says a god would not be bound by the physical laws that make up a particular universe. If such an entity is present in this universe then is must, by the nature of those laws be bound by those laws.
2/ My argument has always been that E=MC^2 proves that no omnipotent entity as described in Revelations 19:6 (KJV) can exist in this universe.
In both arguments this universe is the only one that counts as far as humanity is concerned. As you say, if other universes exists the laws that govern them may be different.
And most accounts of deities tend to place their Gods beyond the limits of mortal ken. And if this god of theirs is responsible for the creation of our universe it does make sense that it exists on a plane of existence beyond those that we experience. This is what today we may describe as a multiverse and until we develop a quantum theory of gravity we cannot make any scientific determinations about it. Although it can be noted all current hypotheses regarding this make no mention of any gods and the god concept makes no scientific predictions.

But as it is this is all moot since it relies on philosophical speculation, and any and all problems are solved with Godmagic anyway. Which renders the concept both non-falsifiable and non-scientific. Which ultimately is the whole point.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#80387 Mar 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
and again...
are you saying that atheists do not look for fault in the bible?
We don't have to look for it.

It's glaringly obvious.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#80388 Mar 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So your saying there's no evidence that atheists look for fault in the bible?
really...lol
Many atheists started out as believers.

Reading the bible, with all of its glaring errors and contradictions, is what caused them to reject it.

They read the bible looking for truth and found lies.

It is not the atheists' fault. It is the bible's.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#80389 Mar 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And most accounts of deities tend to place their Gods beyond the limits of mortal ken. And if this god of theirs is responsible for the creation of our universe it does make sense that it exists on a plane of existence beyond those that we experience. This is what today we may describe as a multiverse and until we develop a quantum theory of gravity we cannot make any scientific determinations about it. Although it can be noted all current hypotheses regarding this make no mention of any gods and the god concept makes no scientific predictions.
But as it is this is all moot since it relies on philosophical speculation, and any and all problems are solved with Godmagic anyway. Which renders the concept both non-falsifiable and non-scientific. Which ultimately is the whole point.
The majority of gods were penned between 10,000 and 1,000 years ago long before the understanding of anything outside our universe.

And to exist in our universe defies the laws of that universe.

This of course does not disprove the “thought” of gods existing, people are free to think whatever they want.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80390 Mar 11, 2013
Cybele wrote:
So being unique makes us mutant? Are we of the same species or not? If we are all unique, then there is no need for made up taxonomy in Biology.
Biologists disagree. And they have done for centuries. We however are the same species because we can interbreed. However I am aware that all labels we apply to biology (or anything else for that matter) are ultimately arbitrary. But that does not change the fact that life can and does change over time.
Cybele wrote:
A bee orchid is not a bee, it's still a flower species.
Flower is a species? Or are there many species of flower?
Cybele wrote:
A bee has always been a bee, unless you want it to be like a butterfly.
Nope. Bees are insects. Butterflies are insects. Meaning in the past they both share an insect like ancestor.
Cybele wrote:
Metamorphosis is not evolution and yet evolution requires a species to morph into another but since it requires millions of years for it to happen, we have NO direct evidence.
Actually we do. The fossils are not direct, agreed. But what IS observed in the fossil record is clear evolutionary progression. Therefore common ancestry is hypothesized. Evolution then makes successful predictions based on that hypothesis. However if you want DIRECT evidence then we have DNA. DNA is a measure of how closely related all organisms are. You can then falsify this idea by finding me just ONE bee or butterfly with the genome of a cactus.
Cybele wrote:
It is ridiculous because if we are still evolving, there should be plentiful of it in action.
And it is. We are all still evolving. But just under 200 mutations per generation is hardly likely to give us the dog giving birth to a cat that you demand. Just because you are personally unaware of reality doesn't make reality not real.
Cybele wrote:
The commensalism and amensalism in nature is not random chance whether you want to admit it or not. It is obviously following a natural order and pattern.
Sure there's natural order. Natural selection is NOT random. The opposite of intelligence is NOT random.

Careful there though, you're starting to sound like Mikey.

:-p
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80391 Mar 11, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Does sexual orientation have anything to do with being a particular species?
No. Homosexuality is observed in numerous species.
Cybele wrote:
Unique, yes. But, mutant? Let's use that as an example. We haven't found evidence for the gay gene. I'm fine with that. Because it is detrimental in natural selection.
No it isn't. It is a part of natural selection. If gay people do not reproduce then natural selection is taking place in ensuring the biological end of their lineage. Assuming of course that gay people don't go ahead and have kids anyway, which some do.
Cybele wrote:
So it's not that homosexuality is an abomination, it is devolution. I have no problem with bisexuality because well you get the point.
Devolution is a non-existent fundie fantasy. There is only evolution or extinction. Evolution is not goal-directed.
Cybele wrote:
Now if you factor in health, intelligence, talent, and personality, how is that evidence for evolution?
They aren't claimed to be. It's shared characteristics which is evidence for evolution. But not just any old characteristics, it's characteristics consistent with nested hierarchy.
Cybele wrote:
How does that change into another species? Does being biracial or multiracial make one a mutant?
Pretty much everything that has ever lived is a mutant as they all have mutations, ie, they all have a different genome from their forbears.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 21 min Wolftracks 147,215
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 30 min -Lea- 20,523
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr My Location Show 36,496
Favorite lines from a song (Mar '08) 1 hr liam cul8r 3,614
Words "with more than one meaning" (Sep '12) 1 hr -patricia- 254
The long list of thing I'll never do (Jul '13) 1 hr Go Blue Forever 295
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 2 hr Roxie Darling 25,963
the good old days ..... 3 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 26
What Could Be Sweet,...? 6 hr SLY WEST 39
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••