Kid Cid Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 OK, one more time as I didn't really think it was that hard to follow logic. Given - ID is based on the notion that life is too complex to be created randomly, therefore some type of Intelligence had to have guided it. Given - ID at its core is not a different hypothesis than creationism. It has just been stripped of its Judeo-Christian ideology. Given - There is no scientific evidence either now or at any point in the history of man that there is any higher order of being, either living on Earth, extraterrestrial or supuernatural, capable of creating life of any sort. Given - The largest body of scientific evidence points against the existence of a higher order of being. For example, we no longer believe that Apollo in his Chariot pulls the sun across the sky. Science has explained why the sun moves across the sky from east to west. Therefore - ID is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Until such time as there is evidence of this higher order being, ID is at best an intellectual musing; at worst it is a blatant attempt to corrupt valid science being studied. Therefore - Teaching an obviously invalid hypothesis in a science class is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Not all, but a huge amount of knowledge has been compiled about our physical nature. But we are far more complex than just skin & bones. This is what I believe BM is referring to as well as our origins & how we came to be what we are today. I agree with him...science is nowhere near 'offering, let alone proving, any explanation of mankind.' 1259840[/snapback] Define explanation. If it is how we came to exist, then there is the Theory of Evolution. If it is why we exist, I must ask, "Why does there have to be a reason?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 some of you need to re-read (or read) the actual quotes from darwin earlier in this thread that highlight the major holes in his theory. he knew about them, and they remain major holes to this day. so when a science teacher puts up darwin's chart showing how major classes of species were created from other classes (plants to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, etc.), what is being displayed has no actual basis in scientific evidence - evidence that SHOULD be able to be found by darwin's own admission. without discussing the shortfalls of the theory (this is only one), we are doing kids a discredit by creating the illusion that it is all fact. my favorite, however, are darwin's statement about the eye. if you dig deeper, you would come to understand that natural selection simply cannot explain the synchronized complexity of the eye, along with many, many other parts of the human body. darwin stated that as you analyze and break down living organisms, they should become simpler to explain. what science is finding today directly contradicts this as we are discovering the enormous ("staggering" as darwin put it) complexity of our biophysical make-up. said simply, things get more complex as we understand more, not less. finally, to explain what we see today in living organisms, if natural selection/evolution are to be used, we must be able to backtrack from our current state and describe prior, less evolved, states that could exist. these less evolved states would represent a progression of complexity and would represent interim states that have evolved based on survival needs. there are many, many, many examples of how our current physical make-up cannot be explained by evolution, especially, again, when you try to explain these major jumps in species. ok, this is really my final thought. it seems to me the big issue here is whether ID is "taught" in science as fact. i am not for this option. i am, however, for considering it as an option to be taught, along with the other popular, prevalent options of the day (which do not include the zappa family ...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Ton, did scientific theory freeze in time back in the 1800s? You've bought the ID sales pitch hook, line, and sinker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 the best example i've read about our behavior that is inconsistent with evolution is the notion that we would die for either someone else or for a cause that we believe in. if evolution/natural selection are true, then we would be a race that is made up of a survival-only mindset, much like you find with animals. we have higher aspirations than this, and a spiritual component that permeates all forms of human existence, regardless of wealth, geographic location, race, etc. there is CLEARLY a spiritual side to human beings that should be fair game for scientific analysis. in fact, one could go so far as to say that we are beings that are seemingly DESIGNED for spiritual thought and engagement. also, when we study science long enough, you will continue to learn about fundamental law after fundamental law that all work in harmony to maintain the balance of life on this planet. move the earth a few miles from the sun and we are a big lifeless rock. change the angle of the earth a bit and we are all either under water of frozen. take the moon and shift it around and our tides are out of control. modify the composition of the gases in our atmosphere and all life ceases to exist. seems to me that after pounding out these countless fundamental laws that are all working in concert with each other to enable me to be sitting here and typing this today, it might cross the mind that this highly tuned universe may be more than just the product of random chance. and even with random chance, there still had to be a beginning, so the question of trying to scientifically understand the beginning of life while being prohibited to mention a belief that is held by billions of people on the planet seems downright silly. some act like if this is permitted, it is some serious breach of science, which is hogwash. there are many scientists today, including creation scientists, that are tackling this question, which is actually the ULTIMATE scientific question to be answered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Define explanation. If it is how we came to exist, then there is the Theory of Evolution. If it is why we exist, I must ask, "Why does there have to be a reason?" 1259885[/snapback] The Theory of Evolution is far from being proven. It is an explanation, yes, but there are many other explanations that completely contradict that expanation. There are a lot of guesses out there, some scientific, some not and none have been proven therefore we are far from knowing the answer. In reference to your second question, It's the ultimate question. Some really would like to know. Me, I'm just happy that I do. I, for one, believe that we'll either find out after we die or we'll just no longer desire to know such meaningless questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Ton, did scientific theory freeze in time back in the 1800s? You've bought the ID sales pitch hook, line, and sinker. 1259966[/snapback] i'm supporting the position that ID is a valid topic to be part of a scientific ciricullum and that we should not be treating it with all of the fears of subversion and close-mindedness that prevail today. there is a rich amount of scientific discussion to be had (just look at this thread) when trying to ascertain if ID is an option to be considered vs. evolution, which is currently widely presented as fact (despite glaring outages). i study the data and make my own conclusions vs. buying any sales pitch. your statement of scientific theory freezing in the 1800s makes no sense. you will have to explain that to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meat Face Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 Meat Face and the person who wrote the article, Sara Goudarzi of Livescience.com, by their comments are using this find to discredit Intelligent Design. 1259527[/snapback] Actually, I'm using this article to MAKE FUN of Intelligent Design. "ID as science" discredits itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) Actually, I'm using this article to MAKE FUN of Intelligent Design. "ID as science" discredits itself. 1259975[/snapback] As a science, yes it does. As a belief it's an unknown. Nobody can say if is true or not no matter how ridiculous you think it may be. If you don't believe in a higher being then why waste your time arguing with those that do? My thinking is that you or they struggle with it just as much as those of us that do believe and by poking fun at us & our beliefs you are only trying to solidify your own belief that there is no God. Edited January 11, 2006 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Why couldn't the words "Intelligent Design" replace the words "random chance"?OR, why couldn't the words "possiblly Intelligent Design" replace the words "random chance"? OR, why couldn't the words "It could be random chance, it could possibly be Intelligent Design, but really 'I dunno' " replace the words "random chance"? 1259744[/snapback] evolutionary theory doesn't attribute much, if anything, to "random chance". you're speaking about something you're totally ignorant of. i'm sorry i really don't have much patience for this sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 evolutionary theory doesn't attribute much, if anything, to "random chance". you're speaking about something you're totally ignorant of. i'm sorry i really don't have much patience for this sort of thing. 1259998[/snapback] random chance is more applicable in the discussion of the start of life - not when it comes to natural selection/evolution, which is based on survival and adaptation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meat Face Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 As a science, yes it does. As a belief it's an unknown. Nobody can say if is true or not no matter how ridiculous you think it may be. If you don't believe in a higher being then why waste your time arguing with those that do? 1259996[/snapback] It's entertaining?! That and I don't want ID taught in science class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 It's entertaining?! That and I don't want ID taught in science class. 1260010[/snapback] Somehow, I see your point. :takingoffmyfreudiancap: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 evolutionary theory doesn't attribute much, if anything, to "random chance". you're speaking about something you're totally ignorant of. i'm sorry i really don't have much patience for this sort of thing. 1259998[/snapback] Pardon my ignorance, but are you saying I'M the one speaking about something I'm totally ignorant of? Re-read my post. I'M not the one espousing random chance as a best theory available. It was a science-guy saying it. I thought that was obviouse, especially from my replies to that. Geez, I'm accused of speaking despite my total ignorance by someone who doesn't even get what I wrote.! By the way, it was not my understanding that speaking despite ignorance on a topic (such as football?) was a no-no here at the Huddle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 One thing that makes me when discussing science and religion, is the lack of competence some have of the scientific method. Some think that a theory is just an idea, some random thought, a potential explanation. An enormous amount of evidence and observation goes into a theory. You could have 999,999,999,999,999 data points that support any given theory while one bit of contradictory evidence may substantially revise or even reject/eliminate a given theory. A theory is supported by a multitude of factual or experimental evidence, but is not conclusively proved or accepted as law. It's frustrating to hear..."yea that is one theory but there are so many more contradictory ideas out there." Well sure, I believe the plate tectonic theory is accurate and another contradictory idea is the Giant Spaghetti Monster is below the earth's crust holding up continents with his noodly appendages and moving around the oceanic and continental plates whenever he gets bored. Some of you guys make ridiculous claims that parts of a theory have no basis in scientific evidence and aren't even close to being plausible. That is ridiculosly incorrect and ignorant of the scientific process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Geez, I'm accused of speaking despite my total ignorance by someone who doesn't even get what I wrote1260168[/snapback] You're not alone. One thing that makes me when discussing science and religion, is the lack of competence some have of the scientific method. 1260176[/snapback] Oh we get it...You just don't get it that we get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 One thing that makes me when discussing science and religion, is the lack of competence some have of the scientific method. Some think that a theory is just an idea, some random thought, a potential explanation. An enormous amount of evidence and observation goes into a theory. You could have 999,999,999,999,999 data points that support any given theory while one bit of contradictory evidence may substantially revise or even reject/eliminate a given theory. A theory is supported by a multitude of factual or experimental evidence, but is not conclusively proved or accepted as law. It's frustrating to hear..."yea that is one theory but there are so many more contradictory ideas out there." Well sure, I believe the plate tectonic theory is accurate and another contradictory idea is the Giant Spaghetti Monster is below the earth's crust holding up continents with his noodly appendages and moving around the oceanic and continental plates whenever he gets bored. Some of you guys make ridiculous claims that parts of a theory have no basis in scientific evidence and aren't even close to being plausible. That is ridiculosly incorrect and ignorant of the scientific process. 1260176[/snapback] yeah, the other guys did that, not me. I was brilliant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 quite interesting to compare the sigs of bushwacked and rajncajn ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) quite interesting to compare the sigs of bushwacked and rajncajn ... 1260195[/snapback] Mine is on a personal level & is not meant as a promotion of the war on terrorism whereas bushwacked's is a direct reflection of his political views. I hope that my sig isn't taken for anything other than that. Edited January 11, 2006 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Mine is on a personal level & is not meant as a promotion of the war on terrorism whereas bushwacked's is a direct reflection of his political views. I hope that my sig isn't taken for anything other than that. 1260232[/snapback] understand. just interesting to read the words and think about the concepts. not meant to be personal ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) understand. just interesting to read the words and think about the concepts. not meant to be personal ... 1260250[/snapback] Didn't think you were being personal, just wanted to make sure my intentions were known. I would never use the loss of a friend to forward a political agenda. Edited January 11, 2006 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) yeah, the other guys did that, not me. I was brilliant! 1260194[/snapback] Mine is on a personal level & is not meant as a promotion of the war on terrorism whereas bushwacked's is a direct reflection of his political views. 1260232[/snapback] Close, but not a direct reflection whatsoever. The quote in my sigline is credited to Hermann Goering, 3rd ranking Nazi behind Hitler and Himmler, at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946. It is however, very fitting to many a rightie here at the Huddle and in our country. Edited January 11, 2006 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Didn't think you were being personal, just wanted to make sure my intentions were known. I would never use the loss of a friend to forward a political agenda. 1260290[/snapback] My condolences for the loss of your friend rajn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) Close, but not a direct reflection whatsoever. The quote in my sigline is credited to Hermann Goering, 3rd ranking Nazi behind Hitler and Himmler, at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946. It is however, very fitting to many a rightie here at the Huddle and in our country. 1260300[/snapback] Sorry, since I normally stay away from the political threads I'm not real up on your political views nor was I familiar of the author, so I just assumed. My condolences for the loss of your friend rajn. 1260302[/snapback] Very much appreciated. Edited January 11, 2006 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 If am going to stupidly jump in here without reading the thread... I believe in intelligent design. I believe that God created everything around us. I believe that God created the universe - using tools, like the big bang. I believe that God created man - through evolution. This all seems rather reasonable to me. ...but I do not think that it should be taught in school. The way things happened - the science of it - sure we can study that, but to say that God was at its core? Duh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.