FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Intelligent Design?Or Evolution?






Evolution Or Intelligent Design? Science Or Adam and Eve?
Evolution should be taught in Educational Inst.
72%
 72%  [ 16 ]
Teaching Evolution should be banned, and Intelligent Design Taught Instead.
9%
 9%  [ 2 ]
Neither should be taught, and a neutral stance adopted.
13%
 13%  [ 3 ]
Christianity should be adopted as State Religion, abolishing seperation between Church/State and The Bible and Its Idea Of Creation Promoted.
4%
 4%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 22

i_am_mine
Quote:
Federal Judge John E. Jones III's against a Pennsylvania school district's "intelligent design" policy could be a turning point in the current flareup of the evolution-vs-creationism debate.

Jones did not attempt to hide his disgust with the Dover, Pennsylvania school board and its so-called "ID policy." The policy required that reading material on intelligent design, including a book entitled Of Pandas and People, be recommended to high school biology students at the start of the section on evolution.

In his opinion he wrote,

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

The ruling was a rare bolt of logic in a year when much of the nation seemed to be coming under the thrall of intelligent design -- the idea that the diversity of biological species we see today could not have come about without supernatural intervention.

Last month, the Kansas State Board of Education handed down new science standards that attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory -- holes into which discussion of intelligent design can be inserted. Ohio teachers continue to labor under similar standards. This month, a judge in Cobb County, Georgia upheld public schools' use of textbook stickers that repeat the old "evolution is only a theory" canard. Earlier in the year, President Bush himself recommended that intelligent design be taught in public schools.

Jack Krebs is president of Kansas Citizens for Science, a group that fought in vain to head off the state school board's creationist science standards. He told me that the Dover decision gives evolution's defenders in Kansas and across the nation a boost because Judge Jones declared that, "Intelligent design has no positive content, that it's just warmed-over creationist arguments against evolution and not accepted by mainstream science."

The ID policy's religious intent was made very clear, says Krebs: "The judge said the Dover school board's policy invoked supernatural causes outside the realm of science."

Because it so obviously violated the separation of church and state required by the U.S. Constitution, the Dover policy was an easy mark for Judge Jones. In contrast, intelligent design's most effective advocates so far have been academics who avoid any overt mention of religion.

But Jones made it clear that he regarded the entire field of intelligent design as faith-based -- that he wasn't fooled by the long days of scientific-sounding testimony he'd heard from university-based ID gurus.

At the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a high-profile research organization dedicated to giving intelligent design some intelligent substance, there was fury at Jones's identification of their mission with that of Dover's religious fundamentalists. John West, associate director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture said the ruling "makes it clear that [Jones] wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."

Jack Krebs maintains that many earlier writings of Discovery Institute scholars do reveal a religious agenda. He says that as time has passed, "they've learned to hide that fairly well. They can manage that because they're a very, very close-knit group."

But, says Krebs, that group loses control of the message when it spreads beyond Seattle: "When the grassroots people get involved, they just can't hide their religious motives."

Dover's ID policy illustrates one method by which the creationist movement attempts to push religion through the back door of biology. The policy states in part, "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact ... Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

Tying evolution to speculation about the origin of life is a favorite tactic of creationists, whether they wear Sunday robes or white lab coats. The object is to create a conflict in people's minds between the science of evolution and the existence of God.

But Darwin's book was entitled On the Origin of Species, not "On the Origin of Life." Even today, research on how life first arose on the planet billions of years ago is in a state of flux and therefore rarely covered in high school biology. In contrast, evolution of new species through natural selection is a unifying concept in biology, backed by a century and a half of research and meriting a prominent place in textbooks.

When it comes to evolution, the science is solid, but the politics are very tricky. With poll after poll showing widespread support among parents for the teaching of intelligent design, its proponents claim to be fighting for nothing more than the right to open inquiry in public schools. Meanwhile, scientists are depicted as a self-appointed priesthood banning all but their own view of life. The Discovery Institute's West went so far as to call the Dover decision "government-imposed censorship."

In a highly technical age when we all can't be experts on everything, people are right to worry about who decides what their kids are taught and what they aren't taught. If religion is to be discussed in religion, philosophy and history classes where it belongs, and not in science classes, scientists and teachers will need to do a better job of informing everyone -- not just high schoolers -- what evolution is and is not.



Importantly, Darwin's Theory does not debate over the existence of God since it does not envolve the topic of " Creation Of Life " ( simply thought as the question " What about the first living thing on Earth ? " ), it only explains the " Origin Of Species ".

The question being, would you like the Theory Of Evolution to be banned in School and instead Be taught Intelligent Design, or for that matter to be taught of Adam And Even and finally the option of being taught nothing at all?

Debates are welcome.
polarBear
Although I strongly agree with the above poster, I'm going to expose a more politically correct point of view:

Tteching religious concepts on a public school is way the best of ideas when everybody in your country believes on the same god and in the same way. Otherwise, it just makes everybody whine. And eventually things get to be extremely violent. You can't force anybody to believe anything, mainly because he already believes in something else just as strongly as you do.
i_am_mine
But to expect a country in which everyone holds the same religious beliefs isn't realistic is it? When I say beliefs I mean not just the same religion, but also the same sect, sub-faith ( I'm not sure the term is politically correct ).Let us even suppose that everyone believes in a single sect of the religion.There will be individuals who hold certain divergent views of their religions, simply as a matter of individual interpretation.

In these cases ( which are cases you see in the Real World ), would it be correct if the religion of the largest majority of the country is given precedence? Such is the situation in most Islamic countries. In some Islamic countries such Malaysia, conversion to Islam is allowed by Law, however conversion to another religion, i.e., abandoning Islam is literally against state law.

However that is to divert from the topic.

Can the faith of the majority be pushed upon the minority? In a way, although I agree the argument is flawed: since the decisions of the majority are the decisions of a democratic government, whether the minority agress to them or not, similarily can the same hold true when it comes to religion and faith?

It does in several Islamic states.

Can the same be promoted in the US?
polarBear
Just to clarify, what I wanted to mean is that making kids swallow a determined religion is going to make their parents nuts if it's not their own belief.



Quote:
*1)Can the faith of the majority be pushed upon the minority? In a way, although I agree the argument is flawed: since the decisions of the majority are the decisions of a democratic government, whether the minority agress to them or not, similarily *2)can the same hold true when it comes to religion and faith?

*1)It is certainly a VERY difficult thing to do. Think of the jews living on Europe all along the Middle Age. Several thousands of them did become christians, but not all of them.

I am not getting the point of your question (my english is not that good)... can you explain me what you wnt to say?
atomictoyz
sharkkky wrote:
Religion is the most horrific and deadly threat to the human race in general, the world will be a much better place if it never existed.



If you do a small amount of research into genocide you will quickly recognize that more people died from non-religious political systems in China and Russia. Just those 2 countries alone in the 20th Century dwarf Hitlers genocidal attempts.

If you are one who does not prescribe to any religion and believe it's all man-made fantasy then the real culprit of such massive numbers of death is man himself. Or in Darwinian terms a part of the natural process not religion Per Se.

If a religion teaches that killing is wrong and the people still kill then it's not the religion is it?

Peace,
Dennis
S3nd K3ys
Invalid poll.

IMNSHO, Evolution should be taught in science class, I.D. (a fancy cover-up of the word Creationism), should be taught elsewhere. (Civics maybe? Or Social Studies?) But it should not be left out. Too many people believe in it.

While I am not a very religious person, I do not subscribe to the theory that the Constitution prohibits the mixing of Church and State. I think it (should) mean(s) it cannot be limited to one religion or prohibit one religion. (I wonder how many people are openly practicing Islam publicly in the US?)

This country (the US), is FULL of all types of religion. Everyone is free to believe the way they choose, and to publicly display that belief. Children should be taught everything we know. (Or assume, in the case of Creationism)
i_am_mine
If Creationism is taught as part of Civics or History ( How thats possible in terms of Classification escapes me ), then other religious groups would demand their own theories be taught as well?

Can something be taught because a great number of people believe in it ( furthermore a clear majority of such "promoters" or believers in ID do not exist ).

Invalid poll? Whatever you say Wink




_________________________________

Evil Inc.,
Promoting Equal Rights
And Democracy
Since January 4,2006.
jveezy
S3nd K3ys wrote:
While I am not a very religious person, I do not subscribe to the theory that the Constitution prohibits the mixing of Church and State. I think it (should) mean(s) it cannot be limited to one religion or prohibit one religion. (I wonder how many people are openly practicing Islam publicly in the US?)


There's two clauses in the Bill of Rights when it comes to religion.

Establishment: The government can't do anything to establish or suggest an endorsement of any specific religion.

Free exercise: The government cannot prevent a citizen from freely practicing his/her own religion.
i_am_mine
Precisely.Its quite clearly put forth in The Constitution.
wowz
I don't know how they teach it where you people are from, but where I'm from they teach it the way it should be taught -

The theory of evolution (since it is a theory)
And
Religious studies (for those of the chosen faith or those that choose to study it)

Makes more sense to me than teaching evo as fact or religion as fact. Let people decide for themselves.

But I don't live in the USA so I don't know what way they teach it there.
horseatingweeds
sharkkky wrote:
I generally feel that anything to do with religion should be banned. Religion has been the root cause of most if not all major conflicts and wars on the entire planet. Just the basics of good and bad should be taught, not in any religious format, when this happens you always end up with the usual' but my god is better than yours' syndrome and hence people fall into conflict with one another. All religions are hypocritical anyway. I was always lead to believe that most if not all religions had rules about forgiveness and killing another. But as seen so often these rule that are set only seem to apply when it suits there own needs. As with all forms of politics, religion also will never work in any successfull manner as basic human nature will always win over. Mainly in the sense of greed, as with politics. There will always be someone abusing the power they have , whether it be political or religious, usually abusing the power in the form of 'I dont like what you say so Im gonna kill you 'till you come round to my point of view. Religion is the most horrific and deadly threat to the human race in general, the world will be a much better place if it never existed.


WOW!!!!

I think this is the most unintelligent post I have ever had to read!

First and I can’t believe I am taking time to write to this post and I am sorry if I sound rude, if you want to ban everything having to do with religion you will have to ban a lot of good stuff, like the first schools that didn’t teach soldiers, first hospitals, and orphanages.

Second, please name one of these "most if not all major conflicts" that was caused by religion, and not some other entity using it, such as the crusades, inquisitions, and jihads.

Third, what is right and wrong without formatting? Cancer is not bad….if your cancer. Without religion there is no moral compass. And if you think so I imagine you have never been tested. Of course you have never stolen if you have never been hungry…..

The rest of your post sounds like a mindless drunken rant. But on thing you said, “Religion is the most horrific and deadly threat to the human race in general, the world will be a much better place if it never existed.” All you needed to say was “religion is the peoples poison”. That’s what the communist believe. It works good, hu. Lack of accountability is great for a society.

The dumbest thing was about killing until you believe my way. No religion has ever done this. Entities have used religion for it’s own ends but anyone sincere in a religion understands that it can not be forced.

My final point is this. Man was born with hunger and he has food and eats. He was born with thirst and he drinks. Man was born with the need for companionship and gathers companions. Man was also born with a thirst hunger and need for a relationship with his God and he searches for it. This is religion.

Anyway, I am usually impressed with the amount of intelligence I am exposed to in this forum. Please only write about things that you have some idea about.
i_am_mine
wow.

Other people need not be as influenced by religion as you are. Indeed you may claim them to be Evil©.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Second, please name one of these "most if not all major conflicts" that was caused by religion, and not some other entity using it, such as the crusades, inquisitions, and jihads.


Some other entity? The influence has always been religion.As your friend Gonzo claims about Allah, so others may claim about another religion.And I would not refute either completely.

To overlook the crusades, the inquisitions and the jihads and claim that the were not influnced greatly if not entirely inspired by religion is probably the most unintelligent thing stated.You may prefer to overlook such moments in history to prove your own imagined point, however, others looking at with a much more removed and objective manner do not.


horseatingweeds wrote:

My final point is this. Man was born with hunger and he has food and eats. He was born with thirst and he drinks. Man was born with the need for companionship and gathers companions. Man was also born with a thirst hunger and need for a relationship with his God and he searches for it. This is religion.


Since you claim the questioning of religion "unintelligent" I shall leave you with a few quotes, some of them by the most Patriotic and famous Americans....
Quote:


Thomas Jefferson [1743-1826] 3rd American president, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat. Deist, avid separationist.


"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" Letter to H. Spafford, 181

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." 1787 letter to his nephew


"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'" From Jefferson's biography


Albert Einstein

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The

And Abraham Lincoln Himself:

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." Joseph Lewis quoting Lincoln in a 1924 speech in New York


"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." Lincoln in a letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield, after the death of Willie Lincoln


And Ayn Rand:

"And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: 'I.'"






It is not for me to decide whether these men were evil, that is something you are better at.However I can state without doubt that they were intelligent and that they had questioned Religion and/or God.
gonzo
What's wrong with pointing out patent flaws in the theory of evolution? And why hide these problems from students?
polarBear
Let's just state that you know crap about any of both issues being discussed here.

Just to inform anybody who wants it, this is are chunks from Wikipedia's article on evolutionary theories -not just ONE theory and specifically not just Darwin's concept-

Quote:
The current understanding of the mechanistics of evolution differs considerably from the theory first outlined by Charles Darwin. Importantly, advances in genetics pioneered by Gregor Mendel led to a sophisticated understanding of the basis of variation and the mechanisms of inheritance. In addition natural selection has come to be seen as only one of a number of forces acting in evolution. A notable milestone in this regard was the formulation of the neutral theory of molecular evolution by Motoo Kimura.


Quote:
Darwin's theory, though it succeeded in profoundly shaking scientific opinion regarding the development of life, could not explain the source of variation in traits within a species, and Darwin's proposal of a hereditary mechanism (pangenesis) was not compelling to most biologists. It was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that these mechanisms were established.


Quote:
Debates have continued within the field. One of the most prominent public debates was over the theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed in 1972 by paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to explain the paucity of transitional forms between phyla in the fossil record.

"While horizontal gene transfer is well-known among bacteria, it is only within the past 10 years that its occurrence has become recognized among higher plants and animals. The scope for horizontal gene transfer is essentially the entire biosphere, with bacteria and viruses serving both as intermediaries for gene trafficking and as reservoirs for gene multiplication and recombination (the process of making new combinations of genetic material)." [7].

All from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#History_of_evolutionary_thought and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Misconceptions_of_modern_evolutionary_biology

And just for further understanding of what the "Theory of Evolution" does actually mean, try peeking this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_evolution
and this also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_neutral_theory_of_biodiversity


and when you have finished reading the articles and its respective sources we can begin to actually talk about evolution, instead of throwing us piles of crap and calling us names.
i_am_mine
Precisely.
atomictoyz
There are many sub-theories to evolution. Theories of Evolution.

There are also alot a problems with actual supporting evidences.

Evolution is defined as change. Period.

Any other definition would pin it to the wall and falsifiy it. Read Chapter 6 in Darwins classic book.

So part of avoiding the process of falsification is to generate vague, non-scientific theories that jump from one sub-theory to another. This give you the illusion of science.

ID if properly understood is scientific because there is observable data that shows there are no processes from Step A to Step B in nearly everything. A Genetic Brickwall Limiter and Molecular Brickwall Limiters.

The basic problem that haunts both, is that nobody has observed the process in action of inert common materials changing into a self replicating living organism in the simplest form.

One group attributes this abiogenisis to God and the other to Nothing.

Both are unprovable and until you prove through observation one to be true, the rest of the argument is just chatter.

ID and Evolution should be taught and maybe along with Catastrophism to give children not only experience in scientific debate but scientific philosophy. All these are elements of science.

Both theories fail in many ways to be science but both succeed in other areas which means we need open dialog rather than the censorship of competing ideas. Science can be taught without invoking evolution and religion but political agendas and ego's often prevent neutrality.

Peace,
Atomic
IAMED_2
I agree most fully with the above post.

I find it very disturbing that some students are now accepting evolution as absolute truth. This is not because it is something they have chosen to believe, but because they believe it is proven, completely and definitively, by scientific evidence. If you look at this from a completely objective point of view, it's equally likely that we came into existence two seconds ago because some divine being accidentally tripped over a log. I have seen someone almost in tears when confronted with this.
Bondings
IAMED_2 wrote:
If you look at this from a completely objective point of view, it's equally likely that we came into existence two seconds ago because some divine being accidentally tripped over a log. I have seen someone almost in tears when confronted with this.

I completely agree that it is possible. However as long as there is no evidence or indication of it, then why teach it in schools?

Let's say you see, together with 30 other people, person A kill person B with a gun.

Of course it could have been that a devine creature let you believe that A killed B, but there is no reason to assume it actually did happen like you saw it.
bewald
Many Christians, such as myself believe in a combination of the two.

I believe God made the world, but who says he did not make it in the way that is studied as evolution? And a lot of Darwin's evolutionary "findings" have been discreditted by secular scientists.

But beyond that, and on the subject, if there is a seperation between church and state, then state should not be able to mandate something anti-religion. Intelligent design also encompasses many more groups than merely Christians.

Muslims, Jews, all types of Christians -- Mormons, Jehovah's witness', and many other religions believe in some type of intelligent design. But whether you believe it or not, evolution itself is only a credible theory. If evolution as well as big bang theory is taught in school, why can't another credible theory be included in textbooks?

I think that is is where the government is pushing too far away from the freedoms and ideals they should be protecting-- we should have the freedom to include whatever "in vogue" theories are credible at the moment, intelligent design included.
S3nd K3ys
So where did the Creator (or Intelligent Designer) come from? Shocked

Must have evolved from someplace....
horseatingweeds
i_am_mine wrote:
Other people need not be as influenced by religion as you are. Indeed you may claim them to be Evil©.


I claimed no one to be evil. Although, I believe and Christians believe that we are all evil (sinners) including myself. Additionally, it is foolish to look at religion as “influencing”. I think maybe you were influenced to think that.

i_am_mine wrote:
Some other entity? The influence has always been religion.As your friend Gonzo claims about Allah, so others may claim about another religion.And I would not refute either completely.

To overlook the crusades, the inquisitions and the jihads and claim that the were not influnced greatly if not entirely inspired by religion is probably the most unintelligent thing stated.You may prefer to overlook such moments in history to prove your own imagined point, however, others looking at with a much more removed and objective manner do not.


I did not overlook the crusades, inquisitions, and jihads. I brought them up, remember, you even quoted it. I brought them up because they are good examples of religion being used by OTHER entities for there own ends.

The crusades were a way to gather a quick cheep army, inquisitors were similar to assassins, and jihads are currently being used to terrorize. Religion is not influencing these events any more than a child’s obedience to his parents is influencing him to get into a car with a pedophile who claims that his mom and dad want him to. Certainly, the child should know better but pedophiles know what they are doing just like the non-religious entities.

i_am_mine wrote:
Since you claim the questioning of religion "unintelligent" I shall leave you with a few quotes, some of them by the most Patriotic and famous Americans....


Also, you didn’t need to wear out your key board with all the quoting crap that is so easily taken out of contents. I never meant to imply that questioning religion is unintelligent, I meant to imply that the post I was quoting was an unintelligent rant by an angry with God John Lennon wannabe. I just get irritated when people say things that they have heard repeated, without thinking about it, thinking it sounds smart, when it is total SB.

Although, it is funny that you would preach the impotents of questioning religion, by quoting chunks of text, that without their before and after, are confusing and easily misunderstood, which is one of those big things that confuses people about religion.
i_am_mine
Bondings wrote:
IAMED_2 wrote:
If you look at this from a completely objective point of view, it's equally likely that we came into existence two seconds ago because some divine being accidentally tripped over a log. I have seen someone almost in tears when confronted with this.

I completely agree that it is possible. However as long as there is no evidence or indication of it, then why teach it in schools?

Let's say you see, together with 30 other people, person A kill person B with a gun.

Of course it could have been that a devine creature let you believe that A killed B, but there is no reason to assume it actually did happen like you saw it.



Any comments on that mode of argument?
somnific
darwins theories dont exclude the idea of there being a divine creator. remember , its only some human beings who wrote those scriptures , and only some human beings who take it as absolute truth. which doesnt make it so.

im curious tho , how is history taught in the USA ?....i mean to ask , how is the genocide of the indigenous people justified in your classrooms ?
horseatingweeds
In US schools Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught as updated in the 1970s to 1980s depending on how old the text books are that they can’t afford to replace.

Killing the native peoples is not justified. Actually, in many cases it is emphasized as this huge horrible “mistake” as those some old white guys with derby hats on and cigars planned it out.

The actual case is more of the haves pushing out the have nots, the strong the weak, the large the small.
somnific
the indigenous and the squatter
i_am_mine
horseatingweeds wrote:

Killing the native peoples is not justified. Actually, in many cases it is emphasized as this huge horrible “mistake” as those some old white guys with derby hats on and cigars planned it out.

The actual case is more of the haves pushing out the have nots, the strong the weak, the large the small.


If that is the actual case, ( this is a question, not a personal swipe ) can War to be looked at as simply as a matter of "Survival of The Fittest " ( not much a diversion from the topic of evolution at all ).

Is a War simply an Extension of Survival Of The Fittest...but in a collective fashion? That is to say, Survival Of The Strongest Community ? ( as opposed to War's being for the purpose of "Good vs. Evil" and "liberation" )

I would say no.

But a debate is welcome.

P.S " the indigenous and the squatter " ...sadly I must admit that I subscribe to this point of view.

Also

Those taking the time to Post in this thread, please vote as well.
somnific
i think to be more accurate , you would have to rephrase...'survival of the ruthless' or something in that veign. we cant impose a semantic ideology on reality , and the reality thus far....is survival of the ruthless


it may also be accurate to note , that the ruthless need not be the majority
horseatingweeds
Societies in a primitive form, such as tribes clans city states and kingdoms, I will just refer to them as kingdoms, as long as recourses are abundant, have historically gotten along quite well until an “aggressor” appears and attempts expansionism. In the case where resources become scares these kingdoms then war over them. The prior often times causing the later. This is survival of the fittest indeed.

In more developed societies the kingdoms are more thoroughly governed. Additionally, its members are more specialized and so efficient leaving time for education and enlightenment. These things lead to an understanding and cooperation in times of need. Of course there is still the aggressor with whom dealing cooperation between neighbors is especially crucial.

In modern times we now have superpowers. It is in these superpowers best interest that all the nations of the world are peaceful and cooperative. That is why our last century especially the last fifty or so years have been the most peaceful in recorded history. This is more of the survival of the most cooperative.
somnific
what cloud do you live on ? can you see my house from up there ?
i_am_mine
Post was alright ( actually was a very interesting point of view ) uptil the point where:
Quote:

In modern times we now have superpowers. It is in these superpowers best interest that all the nations of the world are peaceful and cooperative. That is why our last century especially the last fifty or so years have been the most peaceful in recorded history. This is more of the survival of the most cooperative.


That part of history will show you something else...
horseatingweeds
i_am_mine wrote:


That part of history will show you something else...


I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that the last century has not been relatively void of war, or that it is not in the interests of the superpowers to have cooperation.

Certainly, our last century has seen war, but of a different less violent sort. Centuries before men would line a battle field and a third of them not dieing that day was good and nearly every man saw war in his life time.

Certainly, non-superpower nations aren’t always cooperative and the superpowers don’t always encourage cooperation in every scenario but always with the means of promoting its cooperative allies.
diverden
Fundamentalist Christians are a very powerful force in the US, note the Republican majority in both houses and the President is in the same vein. You can't change the facts to promote your philosophy no matter how hard you try.
somnific
Three Rules to Avoid Dying of Altitude Illness



* Learn the early symptoms of altitude illness and be willing to recognize when you have them.

Quote:
Societies in a primitive form, such as tribes clans city states and kingdoms, I will just refer to them as kingdoms, as long as recourses are abundant, have historically gotten along quite well until an “aggressor” appears and attempts expansionism. In the case where resources become scares these kingdoms then war over them. The prior often times causing the later. This is survival of the fittest indeed.


I'm sorry , do you gleen historical knowledge from the disney channel or something ?



* Never ascend to sleep at a higher altitude with any symptoms of altitude illness.

Quote:
In modern times we now have superpowers. It is in these superpowers best interest that all the nations of the world are peaceful and cooperative. That is why our last century especially the last fifty or so years have been the most peaceful in recorded history. This is more of the survival of the most cooperative.


what an absurd rationalisation, i think you need to descend from that cloud of yours before you nod off



* Descend if your symptoms are getting worse while resting at the same altitude.

Quote:
Certainly, our last century has seen war, but of a different less violent sort. Centuries before men would line a battle field and a third of them not dieing that day was good and nearly every man saw war in his life time.
Certainly, non-superpower nations aren’t always cooperative and the superpowers don’t always encourage cooperation in every scenario but always with the means of promoting its cooperative allies.


certainly, it looks like its too late to save horseeatingweeds. let us bow our heads in remembrance. Horse was a well meaning cloud dweller , a devoted disney fan , and above all - our gal in the sky
horseatingweeds
somnific wrote:
Three Rules to Avoid Dying of Altitude Illness



* Learn the early symptoms of altitude illness and be willing to recognize when you have them.

Quote:
Societies in a primitive form, such as tribes clans city states and kingdoms, I will just refer to them as kingdoms, as long as recourses are abundant, have historically gotten along quite well until an “aggressor” appears and attempts expansionism. In the case where resources become scares these kingdoms then war over them. The prior often times causing the later. This is survival of the fittest indeed.


I'm sorry , do you gleen historical knowledge from the disney channel or something ?



* Never ascend to sleep at a higher altitude with any symptoms of altitude illness.

Quote:
In modern times we now have superpowers. It is in these superpowers best interest that all the nations of the world are peaceful and cooperative. That is why our last century especially the last fifty or so years have been the most peaceful in recorded history. This is more of the survival of the most cooperative.


what an absurd rationalisation, i think you need to descend from that cloud of yours before you nod off



* Descend if your symptoms are getting worse while resting at the same altitude.

Quote:
Certainly, our last century has seen war, but of a different less violent sort. Centuries before men would line a battle field and a third of them not dieing that day was good and nearly every man saw war in his life time.
Certainly, non-superpower nations aren’t always cooperative and the superpowers don’t always encourage cooperation in every scenario but always with the means of promoting its cooperative allies.


certainly, it looks like its too late to save horseeatingweeds. let us bow our heads in remembrance. Horse was a well meaning cloud dweller , a devoted disney fan , and above all - our gal in the sky


Why don't you back up your brainless rantings with some substance?

Is it because you are stupid and angry?

Explain yourself, and I AM sorry about your goat.
i_am_mine
somnific, be a little less vitriolic ( unless provoked ).and push you points by explaining.I'm sure there's something there, its just that you might want to elaborate.
somnific
horseatingweeds wrote:

Why don't you back up your brainless rantings with some substance?


I will if you will. As soon as you put some flesh on the bones of your rhetoric , I'll give you its suitable response. But while you go on about mythological societies and your wishy washy rationalisations , all you'll get from me is my disdain

and why do you assume I'm a goat herder , just because I'm anti american ? FYI europe hates you , ipso facto a hefty chunk of 'the west'....in fact , most of the world hates you, except for the despots your corporations profit from. actually they hate you too. even you hate yourself. you have the worst foreign policy imaginable , and have global hegemony wired into your constitution [2003]. go ahead and put some facts on the table. i'm waiting.

oh...and please dont put it down to jealousy.................

LOL...you couldn't ****** drag me to the states. again.
benwhite
One should avoid making generalizations on behalf of the "world"

Most people with a modicum of intelligence should be capable of distancing the citizens of a country with its government.

Besides the "I hate america" fad is actually more new than not. I might point out that Europe was quite happy with America after WWII, when America provided the money for rebuilding and protected them from the expansion of the Eastern bloc countries, which places like England and France didn't particularly want to deal with.

I might also venture people in a place like India or Africa, when looking through history for someone to hate, might look first to the European countries that brutally colonized them, many less than a generation or two ago.

No one is holy and no one is universally liked. Riding the hate train gets you no where. The world is full good and evil, but don't get that mixed with politics--politics is orchestrated selfishness for a nation's benefit. Everyone is guilty of that. It's just most obvious when a country has its fingers in lots of cookie jars. Cheers.
atomictoyz
i_am_mine wrote:
Bondings wrote:
IAMED_2 wrote:
If you look at this from a completely objective point of view, it's equally likely that we came into existence two seconds ago because some divine being accidentally tripped over a log. I have seen someone almost in tears when confronted with this.

I completely agree that it is possible. However as long as there is no evidence or indication of it, then why teach it in schools?

Let's say you see, together with 30 other people, person A kill person B with a gun.

Of course it could have been that a devine creature let you believe that A killed B, but there is no reason to assume it actually did happen like you saw it.



Any comments on that mode of argument?
Outside of the normal differntials in perception the event of the death will leave evidence that will be analyzed scientifically.

ID says it is reasonable to assume the gun did not fire itself causing the death of person B. Smile

Where as Evolution says the gun fired itself after laying around unloaded for 11 million years. It took another 9 million years for the hammer to develop so the gun could be cocked. Somehow the gunpowder found its way into the shell, but thats not important because we know it got there somehow later to be discovered.

Whoa!!! Smile


Peace,
Atomic
polarBear
Erhm...no. That's not even close to looking like more than a rant under the effects of enteogenic substances.

I would feel more comfy with this analogy:

Intelligent design here would explain that 'some intelligent process' made a gun out of nowhere, bullets out of nowhere, made a man just like the gun, another man just like the previous one, and let them shoot each other. -personal comment: sounds sadistic doesn't it?-

Evolutionary theories would point that both men's hands evolved in a way that allowed them to carry things, and that once some predecessor managed to grab an object and use it as a weapon. Then followed a process on which the weapons themselves evolved as a cultural and technological concept, thanks to the action of men over them, and finally one man managed to make his DNA survive longer by killing the other man, whose wholly nature wasn't as skilled for violence. Period.

Note the differences?

PS:
I just found this on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design and thought it would be an interesting sidenote:
Quote:
The scientific method is based on an approach known as methodological naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. Intelligent design proponents have often said that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution, and want a redefinition of science to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[51] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[52] violates the principle of parsimony,[53] is not falsifiable,[54] is not empirically testable,[55] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[56]

In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[57] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."[58]
atomictoyz
polarBear wrote:
Erhm...no. That's not even close to looking like more than a rant under the effects of enteogenic substances.

I would feel more comfy with this analogy:

Intelligent design here would explain that 'some intelligent process' made a gun out of nowhere, bullets out of nowhere, made a man just like the gun, another man just like the previous one, and let them shoot each other. -personal comment: sounds sadistic doesn't it?-

Evolutionary theories would point that both men's hands evolved in a way that allowed them to carry things, and that once some predecessor managed to grab an object and use it as a weapon. Then followed a process on which the weapons themselves evolved as a cultural and technological concept, thanks to the action of men over them, and finally one man managed to make his DNA survive longer by killing the other man, whose wholly nature wasn't as skilled for violence. Period.

Note the differences?

PS:
I just found this on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design and thought it would be an interesting sidenote:
Quote:
The scientific method is based on an approach known as methodological naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. Intelligent design proponents have often said that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution, and want a redefinition of science to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[51] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[52] violates the principle of parsimony,[53] is not falsifiable,[54] is not empirically testable,[55] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[56]

In light of its apparent failure to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[57] And in October 2005 a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory."[58]



Funny how Evolution fails Falsifiability, consistancy, correctable (why nothing else is taught), rarely uses observation but uses cute analogies and the list goes on. It's funny how Evolution theory is correctable and still considered as fact? SO much for consistancy. Wikpedia gets its definitions from who? Agenda? Maybe and most likely. Both theories require something from nothing yet somehow only ID people are expected to prove it? Double Standard and narrow minded..

Peace,
Atomic
polarBear
1st of all, science doesn't make FACTS. Science makes 'likely to happen' explanations with a strong mathematical basis and a high probability of predicting future stances of a phenomenon. It's not the same.

Second, only ID implies that some dude farted well-dressed humans and all of the other species. Evolutionary theories start from another place.

Third, all of the evolutionary theories do have external evidence, either at mithocondrial level, or at phossil registries, or at mere observation of bacterial reproductive mechanisms. ID's proof... are us.

Quote:
It's funny how Evolution theory is correctable and still considered as fact? SO much for consistancy
Fourth, 'evolution theory' is actually a whole set of correlated theories, many of which end where the others left the explanations.


Just for the sake of understanding, Falsifyability is:
Quote:
a concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the principle that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.

Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be at least in principle possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation had not been made. For example, the proposition "All crows are black" would be falsified by observing one white crow. A falsifiable theory must make a statement concerning what is, or will be, forbidden.
strfry
sharkkky wrote: Religion has been the root cause of most if not all major conflicts and wars on the entire planet.

Which is why religion should be taught. Smile As in: "Learn from the past, and hopefully you can recognize the bad and avert it."

Intelligent Design is often used as a cover up for Creationism, but they really are different. In the vast number of possibilities, ID is another. Seems possible that life, as we know it, could have been created by life we don't yet understand. Who knows? And maybe that life was Created. Or Designed. Or Evolved. Again, who knows? None have been proven.

Micro-evolution has been tested and proven. Macro-evolution has not. Evolution, with a big E, in the macro sense, is as much a religion as any other. In that I mean that it must be taken ultimately on faith.

S3nd K3ys wrote: So where did the Creator (or Intelligent Designer) come from? Must have evolved from someplace....

But what did that evolve from? And then what did /that/ evolve from? And so on. Infinity is a foreign concept to us. We see beginnings and endings, it's hard to imagine no beginning and no ending. Actually, no ending is a bit easier than no beginning, but isn't it possible? And the idea that, even if there was a Creator, he'd have to have been created or evolved doesn't answer the question as to whether /we/ were created, designed, or simply "came into existence from nothing."

It all comes down to faith, what do you believe? Most folks refuse to change their faith or beliefs, even in the ultimate discredting proof; no matter their religion, Creationism, Intelligent Design, or Evolution.

Me? I'll stick with Agnostic, which to me means to simply not make a choice. I have my own feelings, or faith on the subject, but I don't hold myself to them so stringently that I can't be swayed by facts that indicate something else.
Srs2388
Me, I really woldn't want relegion to be forced on anyone, or I woudn't want people to have evolution crammed down there throats either, I think it shouldnt be taught either way... I myself would much rather learn about creationism simply because I dont believe in the evolution theary
nam_siddharth
S3nd K3ys wrote:
So where did the Creator (or Intelligent Designer) come from? Shocked

Must have evolved from someplace....


Why no one answering him?

If universe must be created by someone, God also must be created by someone. And the creator of God also must be created by someone. It will be an infinite chain, will it not?

Why you think, that morals are not possible without God?

You want to pray God to get rid of your sin, You say, all are sinners, so all must worship God to forgiveness. You believe, you will be forgived for you sin.

This thought will only cause boost in evils, not in morality.

Why you not just follow morality and stop thinking about God.

If you believe, you are sinner as all are sinners, why you not just do more good than that of your sins.

Why you must depend on a religion, to find what is wrong and what is right. have you not got enough inteligent to find yourself, what is good and what is bad.

If not, then why you want to count yourself as man. why you not count yourself as just another animal.
atomictoyz
polarBear wrote:
1st of all, science doesn't make FACTS. Science makes 'likely to happen' explanations with a strong mathematical basis and a high probability of predicting future stances of a phenomenon. It's not the same.

Second, only ID implies that some dude farted well-dressed humans and all of the other species. Evolutionary theories start from another place.

Third, all of the evolutionary theories do have external evidence, either at mithocondrial level, or at phossil registries, or at mere observation of bacterial reproductive mechanisms. ID's proof... are us.

Quote:
It's funny how Evolution theory is correctable and still considered as fact? SO much for consistancy
Fourth, 'evolution theory' is actually a whole set of correlated theories, many of which end where the others left the explanations.


Just for the sake of understanding, Falsifyability is:
Quote:
a concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the principle that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.

Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be at least in principle possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation had not been made. For example, the proposition "All crows are black" would be falsified by observing one white crow. A falsifiable theory must make a statement concerning what is, or will be, forbidden.


1) Science isn't supposed to make facts...yet it happens... Part of the problem of why people still beleive even though the observable data suggests alternatives.

2) ID - Suggests based upon observation that there is a minimum level of funcionality in complex systems and sub-systems to such an extent that evolution cannot prove though gradualistic explanations. It infers a metaphysical explanation of origins. There are some evolutionists that have admitted to having similar reservations about evolution because the data says things showed up highly complex with no observable lower levels of complexity with functionality.

3) Evolutionary evidences are interpretations molded to fit the massive number of theories withing evolution to explain observations even if those observations are contradictory(not just left off at the end). In chapter 6 of his own works Darwin lays out potential death blows to his theory yet modern day theorists invented a new, unobservable explanation to counter Darwins own rebuttles.
A simple miniscule change does not mathmatically equate automatically to large scale change as pointed out before. Why does the inference from fragmentary data work so well for evolutionists yet inferences for ID are unacceptable? Double standard?

For the sake of understanding Falsifiability you may want to read up on Karl Popper. Then read the number of arguments on "The Fact of Evolution" and repeat
Quote:
theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.
Darwin understood this well but modern day evolutionists can't admit the possibility of being false because that would be letting ID/Creationism in at some point.

Quote:
Why no one answering him?


Combine the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics with the big bang theory. Whatever existed before singularity logically does not fit within the laws of physics. Completely unprovable scientifically just like abiogenisis. Even the most primitive to the most intellectual, humans for the most part feel a spiritual presence and all these "religions share common attributes that triangulate a single origin for why people believe. There are wierd anomalies, thumbprints of some non-naturalistic intervention in the universe. Research them out. Or blindly ignore.

A majority of people will never research what they don't believe.

Are you tempted?

Evolutionist's defend the theory fanatically like religious people do doctrine. There are alot of simularities that a good lawyer could prove evolution is a religion because people put their faith in it from reading a book in leu of actual scientific experimentation. Belief without observation is Faith.

Every Dog has his day!


Better get a bette Lawyer Smile


Peace,
Atomic
polarBear
Should have smelled the Popper Razz Without diving deep on epistemology I'll just say that I agree more with Kuhn or Lakatos, though I have some deep understanding of his writings (had to ellaborate a thesis on Popper for a local publication-.

Quote:
Science isn't supposed to make facts...yet it happens...
If you buy an explanation and accept it as truth it is indeed YOUR business, not anyone else's. Entire paradigms fall upon a single crisis.

Quote:
ID - Suggests based upon observation that there is a minimum level of funcionality in complex systems and sub-systems to such an extent that evolution cannot prove though gradualistic explanations. It infers a metaphysical explanation of origins. There are some evolutionists that have admitted to having similar reservations about evolution because the data says things showed up highly complex with no observable lower levels of complexity with functionality.
Putting aside the fact that if metaphysical explanations does discard the labeling of 'scientific' for ID, can you explain your last assertion -the one in bold-?, I'm really sleepy today and just don't get it.

Quote:
There are wierd anomalies, thumbprints of some non-naturalistic intervention in the universe. Research them out.
Most of them have been proven fake, much like the Piltdown skull, or logically inviable like sephirotic tree's means of god's intervention, though it would be nice if you present me some others I can study.
Quote:
Darwin understood this well but modern day evolutionists can't admit the possibility of being false because that would be letting ID/Creationism in at some point.
If you are talking about ignorant zealots then you are probably right.

A SCIENTIST would probably make use of any means he finds to ellaborate his own theories on a specific phenomenon. probably including some derivative of ID that has better predictive qualities than any other availlable scheme.

Quote:
Why does the inference from fragmentary data work so well for evolutionists yet inferences for ID are unacceptable? Double standard?
I don't think so. Actually, what I think is that the fact that evolutionary theories do back up on so many sub-sets of information and do successfully explain so many findings WITHOUT requiring the inclusion of unintelligible phenomena as the cause of a natural process that any other scheme just doesn't stand a challenge.

I apologize in advance if you find incoherences, mistakes and the like, but I'm just too tired. Maybe tomorrow I can try and correct myself, or complete, or whatever.
superphysics
You think I am nuts? Well, no. Look at things with an unbiased eye and you will see that evolution has so many loopholes, it is extremely surprising. Use a bit of scientific knowledge and think it out. In fact, even Darwin admitted some shortcomings in his system. If you really want to check out my proposal, go to [url]harunyahya.com[/url] and download one of the many books he has written. Agreed, it is a site about Islam, but you would be surprised to see what Islam has in common with the other beliefs of the Books.
nam_siddharth
superphysics wrote:
You think I am nuts? Well, no. Look at things with an unbiased eye and you will see that evolution has so many loopholes, it is extremely surprising. Use a bit of scientific knowledge and think it out. In fact, even Darwin admitted some shortcomings in his system. If you really want to check out my proposal, go to [url]harunyahya.com[/url] and download one of the many books he has written. Agreed, it is a site about Islam, but you would be surprised to see what Islam has in common with the other beliefs of the Books.


If you see any loop hole in scientif works, then it is supernatural. WOW!
A person came in 6th century [Muhammad], and told the world, that he is messanger of GOD, and you believed it? nice! You never seen any loophole in his theory.

Christ told himself, direct son of GOD, and you belived it. There was no loop hole again. gr8!!
atomictoyz
polarBear wrote:
Should have smelled the Popper Razz Without diving deep on epistemology I'll just say that I agree more with Kuhn or Lakatos, though I have some deep understanding of his writings (had to ellaborate a thesis on Popper for a local publication-.
The definition of Falsifiability always ends up with Popper at some time or another. Popper seemed to have changed his mind because of peer pressure.


Quote:
Science isn't supposed to make facts...yet it happens...
polarBear wrote:
If you buy an explanation and accept it as truth it is indeed YOUR business, not anyone else's. Entire paradigms fall upon a single crisis.
We'll it not about relative truth it's about manipulation and agendas.

Quote:
ID - Suggests based upon observation that there is a minimum level of funcionality in complex systems and sub-systems to such an extent that evolution cannot prove though gradualistic explanations. It infers a metaphysical explanation of origins. There are some evolutionists that have admitted to having similar reservations about evolution because the data says things showed up highly complex with no observable lower levels of complexity with functionality.
polarBear wrote:
Putting aside the fact that if metaphysical explanations does discard the labeling of 'scientific' for ID, can you explain your last assertion -the one in bold-?, I'm really sleepy today and just don't get it.
The point is that Evolution is stuck with the same unanswerable question. When someone stumbles upon a certain item that exists, yet the processes required to make said item doesn't, you are stuck with metaphysical explanations. Many times people will say "just because were not equipped now doesn't mean we won't be in the future" when trying to explain something. Science cannot rely upon the future like a crutch because the crutch doesn't exist.

polarBear wrote:

Most of them have been proven fake, much like the Piltdown skull, or logically inviable like sephirotic tree's means of god's intervention, though it would be nice if you present me some others I can study.
The anomalies I was referring to were not faked example of evolution. The US Government for a while kept records of Phenomina and published books on some really wierd things that "scientists" could not explain even though they see it with their own eyes. In some cases these anomalies defy the Laws of Physics. I will try to see if a linkable resource exists for you. Very cool stuff at any rate.


Quote:
Darwin understood this well but modern day evolutionists can't admit the possibility of being false because that would be letting ID/Creationism in at some point.
polarBear wrote:
If you are talking about ignorant zealots then you are probably right.
Actually I was referring to some Biology Professors I know which is why I'm hard on "scientists" who have been trained and educated through certain institutions. I wouldn't call them ignorant but zealots possibly.

polarBear wrote:
A SCIENTIST would probably make use of any means he finds to ellaborate his own theories on a specific phenomenon. probably including some derivative of ID that has better predictive qualities than any other availlable scheme.
Not globally true. Institutionalized Education has become a vicious circle of butt kissing and personal agendas. Competing for Fame and Fortune not only pollutes religion but science as well. Many of the leading scientists used research in evolution to discover ID. Behe probably being the most debated but Remine's work was most significant but often ignored. When you've spent your whole life in institutionalized educations it's like being in the Matrix. You have no idea how deeply indoctrinated you are and how much has NOT been taught so that people can make a more reasonable decision. Spoon fed.

Quote:
Why does the inference from fragmentary data work so well for evolutionists yet inferences for ID are unacceptable? Double standard?
polarBear wrote:
I don't think so. Actually, what I think is that the fact that evolutionary theories do back up on so many sub-sets of information and do successfully explain so many findings WITHOUT requiring the inclusion of unintelligible phenomena as the cause of a natural process that any other scheme just doesn't stand a challenge.
Once the assumption is made that all change equates to evolution and evolution is the only explanation for change you have lost the objectivity and therefore are no longer in the position to evaluate nor falsify any theory. There are things that make evolution look to be true and sometime the opposite happens. But evolution has become an entirely inclusive theory which I believe Popper said made Evolution unscientific at one point.

polarBear wrote:
I apologize in advance if you find incoherences, mistakes and the like, but I'm just too tired. Maybe tomorrow I can try and correct myself, or complete, or whatever.


How was the nap?

I'm always tired and sleep little...


Peace,
Atomic
Bondings
atomictoyz wrote:
polarBear wrote:

Most of them have been proven fake, much like the Piltdown skull, or logically inviable like sephirotic tree's means of god's intervention, though it would be nice if you present me some others I can study.
The anomalies I was referring to were not faked example of evolution. The US Government for a while kept records of Phenomina and published books on some really wierd things that "scientists" could not explain even though they see it with their own eyes. In some cases these anomalies defy the Laws of Physics. I will try to see if a linkable resource exists for you. Very cool stuff at any rate.

David Copperfield also does a lot of things that a scientist can't explain, even if he sees it with his own eyes.
atomictoyz
Bondings wrote:
atomictoyz wrote:
polarBear wrote:

Most of them have been proven fake, much like the Piltdown skull, or logically inviable like sephirotic tree's means of god's intervention, though it would be nice if you present me some others I can study.
The anomalies I was referring to were not faked example of evolution. The US Government for a while kept records of Phenomina and published books on some really wierd things that "scientists" could not explain even though they see it with their own eyes. In some cases these anomalies defy the Laws of Physics. I will try to see if a linkable resource exists for you. Very cool stuff at any rate.

David Copperfield also does a lot of things that a scientist can't explain, even if he sees it with his own eyes.


Smile

If David can explain it then it doesn't say much for the scientist Wink

The US government used to have team of Scientists whose only job was to investigate phenomina and try to reproduce it to explain it away. As you can imagine they were very busy around places like Roswell. I spent a few years as a designer in an area where we explored and exploited phenomina in physics, this eventually led me to investigating biological phenomina. But what Copperfield does is completely different because he hides his methods to the viewer. Phenomina is stuff that isn't supposed to happen according to established laws or whatever dogma you've attached yourself to....

Peace,
Atomic
Related topics
A Car that drives like a Fish.
evulution
Unlocking the mystery of life
Who All Believes In Evolution?
Why the big change from Creationism to Intelligent Design?
science vs. religion
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Intelligent Design in Schools?
Science - Anybody Interested
God a superstition?
Unintelligent Design
Evolution or Intelligent Design?
Intelligent Design - Science or Religion?
Vatican and Anglican Church embrace evolution?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.