Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Quote (Narratorway @ 22nd December 2005 14:36)

Quote (gozaru~ @ 22nd December 2005 11:36)

.why do you think they have to keep reinventing the miller-urey experiment? with new and different atmospheres?

I figured it's cause science is about finding out what works, even after you found out one way that doesn't work? Least that's what I remember being told. I tended to sleep through biology, but at least it was easier than chemistry. God, don't even get me started on chemistry.

ID looks to be a slap in the face to the very concept of science. It's a cheat code and poorly done one at that. It says that all the things we don't understand about (in this case) biology must be the result of God simply saying 'let it be so' and it is. I can see how it'd be far easier to prove ID rather than evolution. I have no doubts evolution is flowed or outright wrong, but I don't see how that automatically makes ID right. What makes it 'right' is that it takes all that we know up to this point in human discovery and says the rest is a higher power. How do you disprove that?

Evolution, wrong or right has its heart in the right place. Science is about trying to find out why things work the way they do. All things. Step by step and all that. If ID wants to be more than just a faulty bridge to creationism, it should take the next steps in the path it's chosen and find out what that intelligence is and how it changes whatever it's supposed to be changing. One way or another I think we're going to find out the truth...or at least more of it.

We're gonna be around...humans that is...maybe for not much longer in the grand scheme of things, but I figure at least a thousand more years God willing (hee hee). We're gonna learn new things that we didn't know before about how life works and apply it to what we know and think we know now that may (and of course may not) explain what we're saying is God right now. Although, personally, I don't think it matters for squat. The layers for the mechanics of life I think are damb near infinite and beyond the scope of human beings. Meaning, we'll die out as a species before we get to the bottom of it. Just not enough time.

Or maybe I'm reading ID wrong. Goz, you seem to be the formost priest on this thing. If you should decide to attack this post with vague scientific ramblings I obviously won't understand (not being a microbiologist or whatever the hell you are), could you do me a favor and just post up the whole of the theory of ID itself? And while your at it, put up the theory of evolution too, whatever recent one we're going by nowadays.

Thanks, your a doll.

1) no. reinventing the experiment just serves to prove that they are hand-choosing (an intelligent process) the *exact* combination of elements that might have been remotely possible in early earth (reducing atmosphere? hydrogen escapes to space in these volatile conditions, did we forget?) that also can be manipulated to produced various basic amino acids like prolines and valines. cosmologists & astrophysicists are constantly reprimanding biologists for their bad science in assuming such impossible conditions for earth's early atmosphere. this is not "finding what works," it's "refusing to abandon the wrong idea."

2) and 3) i've addressed the non-essential nature of disprovability in my previous posts. and you seem to have id all wrong. id does not say, "well, since we can't understand, it must be God." it says "look at how much evidence there is in all facets of the natural world pointing to a designer. since we also have religions whose holy books are historically accurate and corroborate with archeological records (judaism and Christianity), why not assume that those religions might have some truth to them? isn't the point of science to find the truth? since when has it been to provide the most purely naturalistic explanation for everything in reality? are we that insecure that there actually may be things that we humans can't fully understand in our limited consciousness? id is science reaching back to the most fundamental level: the search for Truth. "darwinism" is dogma in science; as you yourself said, in science, when you test something and find it to be faulty, you discard it and move on. evolutionists still hold fast to an uncorroborated and nonsensical theory.

5) id and the theory of evolution are not something you can copy-and-paste from wikipedia. they are well-documented theories of origin that can be found all throughout contemporary scientific literature. if you know so little about id that you write it off as a parlor trick for explaining the unexplainable, you, too, have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. that, then, too, is a failure on your part, not mine. it's up to you to look up the facts if you want to be knowledgable.

Evolution shouldn't be taught because it has nothing that proves it correct, requires as much faith (more) to believe in as any religious doctrine, is supported as an origins theory only because it's "not religious," and was formed only because Darwin needed something (anything) to justify his atheism. Creationism shouldn't be taught because it's "not scientific." ID is a theologically ambiguous position that really only serves to show that Evolution isn't absolute fact.

People often complain that teachers don't have enough time to teach the given material over the year without having to take time out to teach an opposing theory to evolution. So take it out. Don't teach ID or evolution. Evolution is really unimportant part of Biology class anyways (I've even heard some arguements that evolution has hindered scientific advancement). My HS and CC Bio teachers both skipped the first chapter in their textbooks, but I still know how a cell divides.

--------------------

"I had to write four novels before they let me write comic books."
-Brad Meltzer

DP: ID wasn't created to disprove Evolution. Evolution is doing a pretty good job of that on it's own.

Goz: Mah man! Ya got back to me on that ID thang. It's kinda odd ya said ya didn't though. I mean hell...ya even put it in quotes.

"look at how much evidence there is in all facets of the natural world pointing to a designer. <--Okay...half a quote, but whatever...

I see plenty of evidence of a design in nature...not so much a designer. All this work...no signature. It's just as easy for me to say that the continuing system of interaction between lifeforms was created for no other reason than it HAD to be or else we wouldn't be here to bitch about it. It is because if it wasn't...it wouldn't. But I think that's more a philosophy thing, which makes sense.

Looking at that quote there, it looks to me like ID and Evolution are...well, bad answers to two different questions. Evolution tries to answer how life continues to change. ID tries to answer why life continues to change, but the concept can really extend to all facets of science when talking about design. Biology, Physics, Chemistry, they all have designs. We're just trying to figure them out.

I feel smarter for saying all that crap, but I haven't really answered the core question. But here it is:

ID is NOT science if it only has something to say and nothing to ask, and that's what it looks like to me.

--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts

Quote (gozaru~ @ 22nd December 2005 13:36)

let me also say, nu, as usual, it's obvious that you haven't the foggiest clue what the breadth of intelligent design really involves. i invited you to debate with me the validity of behe's irreducible complexity at one point, as you were running your mouth off about how it was scientifically ungrounded and just wrong besides; you were not interested, presumably because you were just parroting back something (wrong) you had read somewhere that you immediately jumped on because it sounded anti-id. it's really too bad that no one has been able to offer a proper critique of irredcible complexity, besides adding billions and billionsw of more years to the evolutionary timescale in the implicdation of OTHER intermediate species and organisms that we have no artifact of here today. i invite you again, but this time, the burden of proof is on you. you must first take the initiative to understand the science in which id is grounded -- and there is *so much* science in which id is grounded, far more than evolution by all means. all you're really doing here is throwing around derisive quote marks and offering no real substance to the argument besides "id clearly implies God, so don't know jack bout no science." please.

Intelligent design does clearly imply God. Behe argued that systems at the cellular level were irreducibly complex, and therefore there must have been some "intelligent designer." Although he accepted common descent of species (including ape to man), he felt that at such a level Darwinism failed.

Oh, if you want to personally attack me, save it for PM kthx.



--------------------

SPEKKIO: "GRRR...That was most embarrassing!"

I personally don't think ID should be taught along with evolution because I don't think it is science. ID just seems to be a sort of lazy or pseudo science to me, what with its big answer to everything we don't know. That being that something intelligent made life and made it incredibly complex. That just seems like an excuse to stop exploring, trying to find out where we came from, and how things work.

Evolution might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it is following the rules of science. ID doesn't seem to follow the rules of science, so it shouldn't be taught in a science class. I think evolution could be taught in science class, but I don't think its of any great help for kids in school to spend a good deal of time on. Evolutionary theory is interesting enough, but for kids still learning in school I think we should stick more to teaching them what we know.

The question I have about ID is "what is the real point". Okay, so you think that life is so complex that it would have taken an "intelligent designer" to make. Is the theory trying to prove anything that might actually be proveable? Without any scientific way to test the intelligent force or test FOR the intelligent force, I don't think ID can be considered science. Well, maybe science, but most likely bad science. Even if we came to the conclusion that something designed us, that doesn't answer the question of how we were made or what made the designer.

In all honesty, I think ID is pretty much Creationism wrapped in a veil in an attempt to get past the separation of church and state. I'm trying to be a little neutral about it but ID doesn't seem to be giving me much of a reason to do that.

--------------------

-- You're Gonna Carry That Weight --

Quote (Rujuken @ 22nd December 2005 19:39)

I personally don't think ID should be taught along with evolution because I don't think it is science. ID just seems to be a sort of lazy or pseudo science to me, what with its big answer to everything we don't know. That being that something intelligent made life and made it incredibly complex. That just seems like an excuse to stop exploring, trying to find out where we came from, and how things work.

Evolution might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it is following the rules of science. ID doesn't seem to follow the rules of science, so it shouldn't be taught in a science class. I think evolution could be taught in science class, but I don't think its of any great help for kids in school to spend a good deal of time on. Evolutionary theory is interesting enough, but for kids still learning in school I think we should stick more to teaching them what we know.

The question I have about ID is "what is the real point". Okay, so you think that life is so complex that it would have taken an "intelligent designer" to make. Is the theory trying to prove anything that might actually be proveable? Without any scientific way to test the intelligent force or test FOR the intelligent force, I don't think ID can be considered science. Well, maybe science, but most likely bad science. Even if we came to the conclusion that something designed us, that doesn't answer the question of how we were made or what made the designer.

In all honesty, I think ID is pretty much Creationism wrapped in a veil in an attempt to get past the separation of church and state. I'm trying to be a little neutral about it but ID doesn't seem to be giving me much of a reason to do that.

what's that all about? how is postulating with evidence that God made man more of a psuedo-science than postulating with evidence to the contrary that man evolved from, originally, nothing? id doesn't and hasn't ever suggested that we stop trying to find out everything we can about the world around us. we will continue to examine the fossil record; we will continue to probe at the smallest levels of our physics reality; we will come to understand exactly how every biochemical constituent of our makeup functions -- we will do all of these things under acceptance of id or acceptance of darwinistic evolution, will we not? so, God made the universe and gave man the capability to find out how its intricacies work. wonderful -- let's keep studying. the difference between id and darwinism is that darwinism can be tested -- and every test so far that it has been put up to, it has failed.

i'll reiterate once again: the "rules of science" involve repeated testing of observable hypotheses, and all of the predictions made exclusively by evoution are so far unevidenced or have evidence to the contrary. id follows the rules of science in that it takes scientific observations and makes an inference as to the origin of everything based on sound scientific principles. darwinism is just as much a "guess" as id.

is there any question that id is creationism, still? design implies a designer; there can be no design without there having been a designer. so if we accept "intelligent design" as a theory with merit, then we accept the merit of there being a "designer" (or Designer).

Quote (gozaru~ @ 22nd December 2005 19:57)

the difference between id and darwinism is that darwinism can be tested -- and every test so far that it has been put up to, it has failed.

Well that would be why I don't think ID is scientific. You said it yourself, ID can't be tested. For something to be scientific, doesn't it have to be able to be tested in some way? If you believe something and you have no way of proving it to be right or wrong, then it is faith and not science.

Evolution may be wrong and I suppose it did just start out as a guess. But it is a guess that can be tested and change as we collect new data. It started out as a theory that we simply evolved from apes, which now we know not to be true. Now I think the theory is we evolved from an ape-like critter that lived out in open plains areas, and used trees to escape predators. Not sure about that, but its not very relevant.

If evolutionary theory is wrong or right, it will be shown using tests. It may just be thrown out the window someday because we will have evidence to disprove it. I don't think it matters what evidence you collect, concerning the origins of life, ID will never change or be able to be proven one way or another. Unless, of course, you start find something like what Narratorway mentioned in DNA or something (like signatures -> "God was here")I just don't see how that is science.

If the only point of ID is an unproveable statement, then what reason would anyone have to consider it a scientific theory.

This post has been edited by Rujuken on 23rd December 2005 04:04

--------------------

-- You're Gonna Carry That Weight --

Quote (The_Pink_Nu1 @ 22nd December 2005 19:20)

Intelligent design does clearly imply God. Behe argued that systems at the cellular level were irreducibly complex, and therefore there must have been some "intelligent designer." Although he accepted common descent of species (including ape to man), he felt that at such a level Darwinism failed.

Though I'm not attacking ID or religion as a whole, this is a problem with these kinds of things. The primary reason for religion-based explanations is "We can't understand it, therefore some higher being did it."

I'm not saying evolution is THE answer. But so many religious theories were proven wrong once technology had progressed to a point where precise verifications could be made that it's hard to validate things like these just by saying "that's how it is."

- Franklin discovering that lightning is not, in fact, sent by god, but rather an electrical transfer between negative and positive charges yada yada yada...

- The Bible, quite frankly, taking a guess that the Earth was flat, only to be proven wrong once we first went into space (and theorised wrong long before that.)

- "Sperm" being a little man (homonculous) that merged with menstrual blood to form a child. Being proven wrong once biology had evolved to a point where the real reaction could be observed with one's own eyes.

- Etc..

I'm not saying ID is wrong. But it does have a pretty hefty precedent of "guesses" that were proven wrong by science. Mind, I'm not saying evolution's right either.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

A quick glance at the news tells you all you need to know about Natural Selection: it's been discovered that we're already seeing cases of avian flu (caused by a virus) that's resistant to the drug that normally treats it (oseltamavir/Tamiflu). Treating avian flu with Tamiflu would eventually increase the proportion of resistant avian flu, since you're killing off only susceptible viruses.

But that diversion aside, I assume that no one challenges Natural Selection as a fact; after all, it's a passive process whereby those with unfavourable phenotypes relative to their environment simply do not survive, leaving behind a greater and greater proportion of those with 'favourable' phenotypes. I think that the debate is over what caused the genetic changes in the first place. Did some sort of completely random mutation/recombination/plasmid transfer/other changes occur, leading to this 'better' phenotype? Or was there some sort of unseen 'designer' guiding this whole process?

The food for thought I want to leave is this: are evolutionism and ID really diametrically opposite, competing theories? Can you define ID and then say that evolutionism is the opposite of that? Here's the dictionary.com definition of Intelligent Design, followed by Evolution:

a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID

Biology. [ie biological definition of evolution]
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny

You'd have to stretch that evolution definition pretty thin to think that it says all lifeforms evolved out of a bunch of atoms floating around in a fertile 'soup', starting with a burst of lightning. But at the same time, the avian flu virus meets the dictionary definition of evolution if you can believe that the two strains will become so different that they become members of two different species. As for the definition of ID, I see it saying: "The world is as it is, because the Designer meant it to be". It's actually possible to believe in both of them at the same time. Add ", because the Designer meant it to be" to the definition of evolution and voila!, you can sleep at night knowing that you're not contradicting yourself.

Let's not confuse evolution with evolutionism, which as it turns out, is the opposite of ID. [I just found out that they're two different things, and I'm too lazy to edit my post.] The court ruling dismissed ID as an alternative to evolution, and not evolutionism. I was taught evolution in my biology class in high school (a Catholic high school), and was taught a modified form of ID...in religion class.

I'm starting to see why the judge ruled as he did. The dictionary definition of evolution is not very extravagant (no mention of apes, humans, or trying to convince me that I'm related to an earthworm), and is very easy to prove (see Galapagos finches, Founder Effect, infectious diseases, etc.). Intelligent Design, however, is essentially a religious belief (religion = Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe). I don't see how it can be expanded as a scientific concept (and by that I mean hypothesizing and experimenting), although I certainly welcome actual, real evidence that demonstrates that it is a science.

So let's remember: the debate is evolution vs. ID, and not evolutionism vs. ID
(P.S. I'm not an evolutionist)

--------------------

Cannis Rules: Balance of Power - My favourite Yuri's Revenge Mod

Well, personally, I'm just going to say, that after really thinking about it, they should both be taught... along with actual Creationism. And Islamic creationism. And all other forms of creationist/why-we-are-here theories (taught as theories, not as fact). And Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Just so the kids can have a laugh, maybe teach it near a holiday).

KillTeach 'em all, let Godthe kids sort 'em out. Just because I'm an atheist, doesn't mean I think I'm automatically right and all others are wrong just becuase I think it.

Why do I take this stance?Easy, Let kids decide for themselves, and gives them ALL sufficient airtime. There's plenty of evidence for and against evolution, plenty of evidence for creationism (Apparently) even if a great deal of it is in people's heads (And we all know what a mess peoples heads are). Sure, I'd personally rather the fundies would go away and die in a ditch and leave just the nice ones who think they're right but don't say that just becuase it's what they think you are automatically wrong and that means they're somehow better than you. You know, the condescending holir-than-thou types.

And Goz, for debates sake, could you send me some actual evidence of the failures of Darwinism, either pointed out where it's already been posted if I missed it or a bunch of links in a PM (by PM only, so this does not go off topic.) I don't think I've ever seen you post the evidence, but I'm notoriously thick. Plus it might be really long which I'd accept as a valid reason for not posting it up here. I personally think Viruses and bacteria are a good example of how evoultion theory is at least partly true. We can see it in them: We simply don't live long enough to see it in larger organisms. That's my interpretation.


--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

Quote

Del S wrote:  Why do I take this stance?Easy, Let kids decide for themselves, and gives them ALL sufficient airtime.

That's all I've been trying to say all along.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Just thought I'd drop a link I just read.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ienceandHealth/

It's partially related to ID/Evolution, partially unrelated, but it's damned interesting whatever your stance.

Edit: And... http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8493

This post has been edited by Silverlance on 24th December 2005 08:11

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Quote

It's partially related to ID/Evolution, partially unrelated, but it's damned interesting whatever your stance

it certainly is interesting, and a little bit amazing if they actually manage to "create" life.

Alright. I'm just gonna post my thoughts, I won't be reading the above posts. You have fun with those.

Intelligent Design is so jacked up on Bible juice it's disgusting. You can call it innocent all you want, but in the end it amounts to nothing but passive attempts at brainwashing.

It's religion. If they want to teach that at a private school, please, feel free. Keep it out of Public Schools. Engel vs Vitale decided that there was a distinct seperation of church and state when they said No Prayer in school. Let's keep it that way. I've never seen a good example of a mixture of church and state in the long run.

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

Don't take your kids to your church unless you want to take them to a Mosque and a Buddhist temple and Mass and etc...

Let's make them federally funded field trips! After all we have a responsibility to present every religious viewpoint to every child.

Or we can teach them the basics of the world in school and let them sort out philosophical and theological issues on their own and at their home.

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Evolution: The New Dogma

Moderator Edit

If you're going to make a bad joke, at least try to contribute to the thread while you're at it. Thanks.
-SSJ_Cloud

Edit

meh... ok

This post has been edited by Hamedo on 28th December 2005 18:42

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (gozaru~)

well, silverfork, you *almost* had something here. *almost.* how the hell can you admist earlier i the post you are not up to snuff in biology, and later deign to tell me that the fundamental and incomplete list of points of evidence against darwinistic evolution are "largely incorrect generalistations?" you're wrong, and you must know it, becuase you mad no effort to scientifically debunk a single one of them.

Goz, dear, if you're gonna respond to something I posted then at least know what I was talking 'bout in the first place. Honestly, I dunno what you're goin' on and on about there, but what I stated as "largely incorrect generalizations" were your alleged thoughts on all Darwin theorists. You said yourself that not a one cared about evidence, yadda yadda, which simply isn't true. Also, they can't all be about removing God from any equation since a good number of 'em believe in the existence of some god or another and his/her/its creation of Earth. Those statements of yours are easy enough to disprove. I really didn't think I needed to clarify it any more than that, but you obviously misunderstood.

I am, however, curious as to what it is you thought I said...

Quote (gozaru~)

uhm, no? ockham's razor suggests that we look to the simplest explanation given by the facts (don't pretend you understood this; you wouldn't have said what you did). to accept evolution, we must overlook the evidence against it and accept it in spite of there being *NO* concrete evidence for it anywhere in our scientific history. yes, it's more that we are inventing facts and cases that can "exaplin away" the problems with the darwinistic theory, and that is most certainly *not* usage of ockhams razor, it's dogmatic stubbornness.

As I said before, from a different viewpoint it's all supported. You believe nothing could ever justify the theory of evolution, and that's fine, but to say that Ockham's Razor can't possibly back it up is just plain ridiculous. First of all, it's my belief that any deity would be more difficult to explain away than evolution itself (remember, there's no concrete evidence of any of those either, past the word of man), hence why I stated ID is "arguably simplistic." I know you wouldn't agree, but don't go around claiming that someone's speaking nonsense and/or can't use the same principle simply 'cause of that. It's a little childish, at best.

The law of parsimony is interpreted as saying, when given opposing theories, that the one more easily conceived (or simple) is therefore most likely to be true or closer to the truth. Moreover, one should use what's already factual to determine the cause of something seemingly unexplainable. Neither what you or anyone else has been stating in this topic goes against that, as they are all equally possible yet equally impossible seeing as both the evolution and ID theories have incredible flaws and lack a great deal of evidence. To you ID seems most likely while to some others it doesn't. So how in the world could your explaination possibly, possibly be favored by Ockham's Razor over anyone else's?

Also, your third response there: Rhetorically asking why God couldn't have started up evolution. That's exactly what I implied before when speaking of those who take both hand-in-hand. Yet again, I didn't believe I had to make it any more clear, but perhaps so.

This post has been edited by SilverFork on 28th December 2005 14:57

--------------------

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

I think until ID has as much scientific evidence behind it as evolution does, it has no place in schools. The fact of the matter is that ID is just creationism without saying "God" and when you make a claim like that, the burden of proof is on you, not some crap about "well you can't prove me wrong."


--------------------

I'm in a band ... dig me now ladies? Yeah, that's right, I didn't think so.

Well, I think this lays it all to rest:

Evolution PWNZ ID!!!!!1111

--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts

That's awesome, Narratorway. I can't believe I've never seen/heard of that before!

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

An interesting topic.

I am personally no great believer in evolution, having studied many of its precepts. Though I believe that much of it has some value in terms of research, I doubt that it will ever be definitively proven as the be-all and end-all of biological development. A fundamental problem with long-term evolution is that it can never scientifically be proven, since the concept of verifying it revolves around the ability to repeat it several times in a controlled environment - needless to say, this would be impossible.

That being said, do I believe that intelligent design should be taught in schools? Well, yes and no. Though I don't particularly hold any stock in all the elitism surrounding how "scientific" and inherently superior the belief in evolution is, I also can't really agree with the idea that intelligent design should be treated on the same platform. Ultimately I believe that the two concepts deal in very different fields, so much so that a comparison between them is almost futile.

Whether or not ID is taught in school, I do believe that far too many concepts in public education, including evolution, are taken as fact when they are theory. Though textbooks and other material are often checked for impartiality, that doesn't stop a teacher from imposing his or her personal beliefs in a supposedly objective setting. I think that it is extremely important to present just the facts to students, and nothing else, allowing inference and belief to take root in a personal setting. All too often incompetent teachers and flawed material stunt intellectual growth by forcing students to make presumptions about the veracity of the fundamentally unknown.

The only thing that I am 100% sure of is that there are things about this world, and this universe, that mere science and reason will never be able to comprehend. The fact is so often lost in modern society, and it is a tragedy that some people genuinely believe that science will be able to solve all of humanity's problems. To quote the Bard: "There are more things in heaven and on earth/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

--------------------

"I always have a quotation for everything - it saves original thinking."
~Dorothy L. Sayers

"The truly remarkable thing about television is that it allows several million people to laugh at the same joke and still feel lonely."
~T.S. Eliot

"Defeat is not defeat unless accepted as reality - in your own mind!"
~ Bruce Lee

i hate to reinvent controversy with a reply to this thread, especially after such an insightful (as opposed to my inciteful) post by sm. i'll pull out what i find to be the most valuable piece from that post for reemphasis:

Quote

The only thing that I am 100% sure of is that there are things about this world, and this universe, that mere science and reason will never be able to comprehend. The fact is so often lost in modern society, and it is a tragedy that some people genuinely believe that science will be able to solve all of humanity's problems.

this is absolutely true; the problem is that many scienctists are too caught up in their own egos to accept that there are certain things in the universe far above the limited reasoning powers of the human consciousness, and they aren't just found at the universal boundary or in the deep reaches of the cosmos...a great deal of them are right here at home on earth!

now, to go back.

Quote

- Franklin discovering that lightning is not, in fact, sent by god, but rather an electrical transfer between negative and positive charges yada yada yada...

- The Bible, quite frankly, taking a guess that the Earth was flat, only to be proven wrong once we first went into space (and theorised wrong long before that.)

- "Sperm" being a little man (homonculous) that merged with menstrual blood to form a child. Being proven wrong once biology had evolved to a point where the real reaction could be observed with one's own eyes.

1) franklin discovered the mechanism for electricity. God still created it and thus God still can be said to be the progenitor of the storms. after all, we believe that there weren't even any storms before the great flood.

2) uh, nowhere in the *entire Bible* does it say the earth is flat (to the contrsry, in isaiah 40:22, God is spken of as "sitting over the circle of the earth"). in fact, the infamous Christian philosophers who rejected the platonic spherical earth (e.g. lacantius) were considered to be heretics by the early fathers of the church! if you're referring tp the washington irving story, you must go do some more research and realise both that his story is FICTION and NOBODY still believed the earth was flat at the time of columbus.

3) again, this is nowhere to be found in any Christian doctrine. the idea of homunculi was just an early and uninformed preformative theory.

so i guess it's just another 3 wrong pieces of information. it's really depressing, you know.

Quote

Unless, of course, you start find something like what Narratorway mentioned in DNA or something (like signatures -> "God was here")I just don't see how that is science.

right shit man, seeing as there is so much evidence for interspecial evolution (there, again, is none), we can definitely accept it blindly and with full faith but apply the baffling and excruciating to reason double-standard of PERFECT PROOF (which, incidentally, is nonscientific in and of itself!) to id. now *there's* good science.

Quote

You'd have to stretch that evolution definition pretty thin to think that it says all lifeforms evolved out of a bunch of atoms floating around in a fertile 'soup', starting with a burst of lightning.

no, the debate is indeed id vs darwinism; you may have gone to a catholic school where the dosage of biological evolution was limited to the observable and sensical speciating prrperties of natural selection, but in public schools and especially university, darwinism is taught as fact. it's truly a shame.

Quote

And Goz, for debates sake, could you send me some actual evidence of the failures of Darwinism, either pointed out where it's already been posted if I missed it or a bunch of links in a PM (by PM only, so this does not go off topic.) I don't think I've ever seen you post the evidence, but I'm notoriously thick. Plus it might be really long which I'd accept as a valid reason for not posting it up here. I personally think Viruses and bacteria are a good example of how evoultion theory is at least partly true. We can see it in them: We simply don't live long enough to see it in larger organisms. That's my interpretation.

i can only assume you're joking me here. do you really think i have the time/energy to condense like 6-7 years of study of evolutionary/molecular biology, physics, and cosmology into a really easy-to-read "why evolution is wrong?" if i had that kind of time, don't you think i would have published a book? the same information, again, is availible to you as is availible to me. the burden of research is on you; i am not your teacher, although i will be happy to answer specific questions as they come up.

do realise that bacteria becoming resistant to strains of antibiotics is, if anything, a *sobering* phenomenon for darwinist psychosis. for one, no evolutionary biologist can say with a straight face that developing resistance to a strain of medicine (something our own human immune system does, yes) is related to evolution into new species or is even a toward step in the direction of evolution of a new species. the second, and more sobering, characteristic is this: for a whole strain bacteria to develop resistance, they and their progenitors have to be *constantly* in contact, in very large number, with the medicine. dna is resistant to good mutations as well as bad ones; this prevents a single nasty but indetectable mutation from wiping out entire species, and it also prevents a single good mutation from rapidly propagating throughout species before nature knows it's even a good thing. evolution presupposes that there must have been plenty of intermedaite mechanisms on the road to where evolutionary biology is today, and not only does that just not hash with entropy and probability theory, it just doesn't make logical sense, either: to think that so many random, isolated "good" mutations were able to survive generational transition where potentially life-threatening random and isolated "bad" mutations don't seem to have been able to wipe out too many species is to pander to naturalistic pop-science.

Quote

Just thought I'd drop a link I just read.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ienceandHealth/

It's partially related to ID/Evolution, partially unrelated, but it's damned interesting whatever your stance.

rofl @ canadian scienctists. they haven't done anything monumental in the past...actually, ever, and they also make absurd and unsubstantiated claims like "we've cloned a baby" or "we will create life." come back to me when the conclusion to this experiment is made public (hint: it's a fair bet that they *won't* be made public for disappointing and embarassing results).

Quote

Intelligent Design is so jacked up on Bible juice it's disgusting. You can call it innocent all you want, but in the end it amounts to nothing but passive attempts at brainwashing.

It's religion. If they want to teach that at a private school, please, feel free. Keep it out of Public Schools. Engel vs Vitale decided that there was a distinct seperation of church and state when they said No Prayer in school. Let's keep it that way. I've never seen a good example of a mixture of church and state in the long run.

brainwashing? you call id brainwashing? it would be amusing to have a poll on here: we could see what percentage of the people who take an id-based philosophy are actually aware of the science and other controversies surrounding the issue, and see how many of the darwinists blindly (brainwashedly?) accept interspecial evolution (i.e. progression from first life -> humans), in light of the *mountains* of evidence against it and not a single shred of evidence for it. darwinistic evolution is philosophical brainwashing the most outrageous sense of the word. scientists do not want to believe there are things they cannot explain, and they sure as hell don't want YOU to believe there are things they can't explain, so they have teamed with liberal journalists to promote the brainwashing of the american sheep who won't do their own research on the subject.

i can only agree that the modern interpretation of "seperation of church and state" suggests that by teaching id, we are "establishing" the religions with creators over the religions without. however, your quip about church and state working together is out of place; i challenge you to name a SINGLE state, seperate from the church, that "in the long run" worked out. you won't be able to do it because, "in the long run," ALL civilisations tend to fall to their own debauchery and complacency.

Quote

Goz, dear...Those statements of yours are easy enough to disprove. I really didn't think I needed to clarify it any more than that, but you obviously misunderstood.

right, well, i've misunderstood completely as you've already discovered on your own. i apologise, then, as i supposed originally you were telling me that my science was wrong. it's true that i speak in hyperbole a lot (you can only have already noticed), and it's also true that i don't actually think that ALL supporters of darwinistic evolution are part of a "vast, atheistic conspiracy" to take God completely out of science. however, i CAN say that darwinistic evolution is the primary (and most unscientific) tool for doing so, and i think, to be the slightest bit optimistic, you can see clearly the point i was trying to make.

Quote

As I said before, from a different viewpoint it's all supported. You believe nothing could ever justify the theory of evolution, and that's fine, but to say that Ockham's Razor can't possibly back it up is just plain ridiculous. First of all, it's my belief that any deity would be more difficult to explain away than evolution itself (remember, there's no concrete evidence of any of those either, past the word of man), hence why I stated ID is "arguably simplistic." I know you wouldn't agree, but don't go around claiming that someone's speaking nonsense and/or can't use the same principle simply 'cause of that. It's a little childish, at best.

at worst, it can be painted in the peurile colours of being childish. at best (and indentically), it is proper understanding of ockham's razor, which, i'll have to say again, you are failing to grasp here. now, it could certainly be that you understand ockham's razor just fine and simply don't understand all of the makeshift patches of gauze thrown haphazardly on the quickly capsizing boat of evolutionary theory, paraded around to the public of sheep that they might feel secure in their superiority over all of the universe, and then ignored when they start cracking, oh so soon...like that's gonna stop the water from coming in...but i can't see how that could be the case, given that i've outlined several of them in this very thread. i would just say that i'm baffled, but instead i'll say again that darwinistic evolution necessitates a myriad of indirect, abstract, and illogical phenomena to explain away the biological evidence we have that is very much not in its favour (cambrian explosion and irreducible complexity are two important ones that we have visited in this tread) -- and that in and of itself is in *direct* violation of ockham's razor; in no way can application of ockham's razor point toward evolution, because evolution becomes increasingly indirect and nonsimplisitc as more and more evidecen comes out that disproves initial formulations of the theory. no evolutionary biologist would be fool enough to tell you that ockham;s razor is a companion in his quest to prove or at least salvage his naturalistic theory.

Quote

as they are all equally possible yet equally impossible seeing as both the evolution and ID theories have incredible flaws and lack a great deal of evidence.

i am interested in the "incredible flaws" to be found in id ("i refuse to conceive there is a God" is not a valid counterpoint).

Quote

So how in the world could your explaination possibly, possibly be favored by Ockham's Razor over anyone else's?

omgz bc okkhams razer is based in scintefik princepals!!!!11!1 so wen ther is plentie of scintifik evidins of 1 thing and not scintifik evidens for a other thing, we seleck the fers thing!

ockham's razor's underlying principle is *not* the matter of opinion. there is no "my" ockham's razor vs "yours." instead, we can simply take a look at the state of the evolutionary theory today, see that it is in logical shambles and chock-full of scientific sleight-of-hand, and make the conclusion that ockham's razor (and all the evidence) quite clearly does not point to darwinistic evolution.

Quote

Also, your third response there: Rhetorically asking why God couldn't have started up evolution. That's exactly what I implied before when speaking of those who take both hand-in-hand. Yet again, I didn't believe I had to make it any more clear, but perhaps so.

eh? you've misunderstood me again. do reexamine my reponse. i ask, reformulating your question, "who is to say...?" my VERY NEXT SENTENCE (usually sentences that come one after another without pgph break are at least somewhat related) is "well, to start..." from there i go on to recite the incomplete list of scientific counterpoints to darwinistic evolutionary theory that i put in my first post. i didn't think i had to make it any clearer, hmm. i'm not against evolution because it's deviod of God, i'm against evolution because it isn't even real science. sure, God COULD have used evolution if he wanted to; hell, God can do whatever he damn well pleases. of course, you know, when ALL (i keep repeating this word in caps to emphasise its importance and predictably no one seems to care that they are defending a thoeyr with really NO concrete evidence) the scientifc evidence points against a certain theory, i tend to reject it like a good scientist should.

Quote

Though textbooks and other material are often checked for impartiality,

oh, yeah, biologists check biolgy books for "impartiality." that's like saying bill keller checks the times' op-ed page for "impartiality." impartiality is all in the eye of the beholder; unfortuantely, it is the ideal of many biologists and even biology teachers that darwinistic dogma be imposed on all schoolchildren, that they might be indoctrinated into becoming well-behaved and functional members of scientific society.

Quote (gozaru~ @ 3rd January 2006 12:44)

no, the debate is indeed id vs darwinism; you may have gone to a catholic school where the dosage of biological evolution was limited to the observable and sensical speciating prrperties of natural selection, but in public schools and especially university, darwinism is taught as fact. it's truly a shame.

I went to a public school and university and at neither one was I taught Darwinism as fact. Mention of Darwin simply stated who he was and what he contributed towards the science of evolution. Never was it stated that he was correct and nor could that inferrence be made by the manner with which the information was presented.

Much like any other subject in school, public or private, it's the teacher who is going to decide how information is presented to the class. Until we are taught by machines this will always be a problem*.

*-if you choose to call it that.

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Goz, you fail to see the point. I'm not saying evolutionism is right, nor is science able to explain everything. The idea I'm trying to convey is that when a country is based on a seperation of church and state, ID has no place in a public school being taught to developing minds. I'm, as you're probably well aware of, no giant advocate of religion, but I can respect that idea that people have it. I'd just prefer that they don't impress it upon children in a public learning facility.

Religion in general bugs me to no end, but I've come to terms with the idea of a higher power existing, (this in no way means I advocate any sort of organized religion though,) and while I'd prefer no religion be taught anywhere ever, I realize it's an asinine hope. If religion is to be taught anywhere though, I'd prefer it be taught and enforced in the home.

True about the second statement. No civilization lasts forever though, as you and I both know. However when we look at a state like the Holy Roman Empire and the turmoil religion caused there, or the Theocracy in Switzerland, or the problems caused by the Spanish inquisition, surely you see that when Religion and the state come together it doesn't end well. I don't recall saying that states with total seperation worked out though, as you seem to imply I did.

But as you say, all things come to an end, religion just causes it sometimes. That's not to say I'm blaming religion for the collapse of every major state/country/civilization ever, as that's clearly not the case.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything, and I don't fully believe Darwinism, although I do believe it in some respects, (natural selection being one of them,) That doesn't mean I'm full blown "brainwashed" by the leftists and the pinkos who preach evolution through and through. Nor does that mean I believe in the notion that the world is 20,000 years old and we all descended from two people in a garden. I've yet to see any overwhelming proof in either direction, but as I stated- I just don't want religion in school.

Is ID incorrect? Yes, in my opinion.
Is Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution incorrect? In some respects, I believe it to be.
Is there a higher power that created the universe? I believe there to be, but that doesn't mean I necessarily believe in religion.
Should ID be taught in school? No, I don't believe it should- see seperation of church and state.
Should Evolution be taught in school? Debatable. I think yes, but only because if a family wanted to teach their child religion, then the creationism theory is already getting some air time in the childs brain. Darwinism and evolution don't generally get taught to kids by their parents. To me, that's just giving the otherside of the spectrum some airtime.

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

Quote (MogMaster @ 3rd January 2006 15:52)

Goz, you fail to see the point. I'm not saying evolutionism is right, nor is science able to explain everything. The idea I'm trying to convey is that when a country is based on a seperation of church and state, ID has no place in a public school being taught to developing minds.

Goz actually conceded this point much earlier. You might have missed it, he tends to write alot.

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote

I went to a public school and university and at neither one was I taught Darwinism as fact. Mention of Darwin simply stated who he was and what he contributed towards the science of evolution. Never was it stated that he was correct and nor could that inferrence be made by the manner with which the information was presented.

that seems to odd to me. even in texas, everything biology from the high svhool level forward (and i am at a private uni, to boot) taught darwin as pure and unassailible fact. i can think of 3 times i have been "kicked out" (i.e., asked to leave) of a class for questioning darwinism.

and mm, actually, i said i agree with you that under the current interpretation of seperation of church and state, id is "out of place" in public schools. but it is almost cruel to withold all notion of id being a valid scientific theory from the young minds who can benefit most from the knowledge...regardless of whether they would intend to use that knowledge to support id or to fight it. this is key.

Quote

However when we look at a state like the Holy Roman Empire and the turmoil religion caused there, or the Theocracy in Switzerland, or the problems caused by the Spanish inquisition, surely you see that when Religion and the state come together it doesn't end well.

in fact, the holy roman empire was one of the most successful and monumental civilisations in the history of earth. it probably did the relative most as far as modernisation of other cultures is concerned. believe it or not, i have never heard of the swiss theocracy. the inquisition and the rampant papal corruption of the middle ages are prima facie evidence for man's imperfection (m)ucking up God's perfect plan; it is fortuantely impossible for you to blame the failures of the Church on religion, because you'll see when taking a closer look that, had the fundamental precepts of Christianity been adhered to by the Church, the corruption and depravity of specific incidences like the sale of indulgences or the bloody inquisition would have been in full part avoided.

Quote

But as you say, all things come to an end, religion just causes it sometimes.

it is quite never Christianity of judaism that can be attributed to the fall of a civilisation. Christian and jewish civilisations have fallen, indeed, but you'll notice a pattern of degeneracy and sinfulness that leads to the civilisations' ruins -- the very acts of *disobeying* the exhortations of their religion if what causes their downfall. but this isn't the "religion in tandem with civilisation," it the "id in class with darwin."

Now, now everyone we all know the reason civilizations fail is Batman Begin's Ra's al Ghul

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 4th January 2006 16:57

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (Narratorway @ 29th December 2005 13:27)

Well, I think this lays it all to rest:

Evolution PWNZ ID!!!!!1111

Before this mess gets any worse, I will temporarily, although officially, endorse Narratorway's post.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

I think the answer is simple.

There's only one "real" person in this world. Everything else is a fabric of this person's fertile imagination, including the person itself. That's right. You're all a flippin' figment of my imagination.

Sorry to break it to you all.

So basically, neither evolution nor god exist as there is no past.

And now to will a bag of pretzles into being on my desk... Like the one I bought last night... there we go.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Quote (Silverlance @ 6th January 2006 19:23)

I think the answer is simple.

There's only one "real" person in this world. Everything else is a fabric of this person's fertile imagination, including the person itself. That's right. You're all a flippin' figment of my imagination.

Sorry to break it to you all.

So basically, neither evolution nor god exist as there is no past.

And now to will a bag of pretzles into being on my desk... Like the one I bought last night... there we go.

Teach me, Master.

Sometimes, I've stayed up all nite in bed thinking about stuff like this. This has actually been one of my thoughts... but eventually i forget about it... probably would be more productive to write it all down...

DONT DO IT! ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING THE NEXT DAY!
which explains my insomnia....

--------------------

Neneko is Neneko because Neneko couldn't be Neneko if Neneko wasn't Neneko!
--as quoted from Neneko, Mahoraba {Heartful Days}

I can stab a man with a thick paperback book thru the ribcage.