Evolution challenge

There is no god. Its not a matter of assuming to keep science forward. Prove god and I will listen to intelligent design as a theory. Its not a bias against my religion, only your yours. There fore I approach the issue thus: Chirstians beleive in one god, Zen Buddhists do not have a god, at least not one that is a transcendent entity. Hindus have many gods, as to Shinto practicioners. Animists have spirits. Pagans have a goddess. Which of these is right? If I accpet one I must reject others.

For myself I do not accept the existence of a transcendent divine being. The universe is mystical enough if you examine the science without putting god behind it. I don't go looking to some higher conscious every time I don't understand something. To have a god is to not truly live in the world, because you are focused on what does or does not please god.

Once you do not accept that there is a transcendent god, then ID makes no sense. Ultimately it is built on the unprovable notion of a divine, transcendent intelligence.

Evolution on the other hand, is simple, direct and makes sense. Ther eare significant challenges within the scientific community on evolution, but the evidence supporting nthe basic principle is consistent and sound. Your repeated mis-use of macro-evolution as a term aside, there is some question about what events impact change. But the universe is mutable, and evolving.

You want me to prove the subject of the theory before you will even accept it's a theory. That is biased, sorry.

Thats the problem when the subject and the theory are one and the same.

The theory is there was/is a creator/s.

If I prove it, it won't be a theory.

No, we have to assume there is no god or the world will be overrun with macro-evolutionary microscopic elephants. Which do you care about more, unborn fetuses or microscopic elephants? If you accept god, you must therefore be pro-abortion. Der.

I have a Bridge in Brooklyn if you can prove evolution is wrong.

FSM!!!!

OK, ID is represented as a scientific theory in competition to Evolution. Therefore, it should be taught along side it right? We need to show that science has contravercies, ok?

Well, science has had its shares of (with hindsight) very bad ideas: flogistron, alchemy, etc. These are not taught along side an atomic theory of chemistry nowadays, despite the fact that elements of them were the root of modern chemistry. The chemistry I was taught at school now contains some howlers, which will not be taught now. Let's leave ID to the history teachers and not afford it currency.

Science has also had its share of (at the time) apparently bad theories: Earth goes round the sun, plate tectonics, etc. These were ridiculed by the scientific establishment, but this isn't necessarily wrong as applied conservatism forces new ideas to be accepted as overarching previous theories and explaining phenomena that the current theory does not; e.g. weird movement of Mars/Venus in the sky, mountains being constantly replaced and so on.

If someone could come up with a novel theory that did a better job than Evolution, by explaining things we currently cannot explain - a hypothetical example would be some form of lamarkian passing on of a learned trait - then it should be taught or at least examined. ID is not in this camp as it is rebadged Creationism. The possibility that a newer better theory should not prevent us teaching the facts of Evolution (or Gravity).

Scientists use 'facts' as things we currently believe we know. The fact that they can be re-evaluated should not be confused with pure belief. For something to be knowledge it has to both be known AND true! As true as we can determine at least. Anything that relies on faith fall far short of that.

I thought Jim Carey was God...where's my money?

Edit: I know it was George buns first then Alanis Morrisette then Morgan Freeman but still one of them is God ...so there's your proof, He's been on tv

Excellent post.

It's all been said before, however, and ignored then too.

And speak for youself. I still believe in alchemy.

Excellent because it agrees with your point of view? Typical evolutionist attitude imho.

Many other things have been said on the other side of the coin, only to be ignored by those who are close-minded to other possibilities. But please, continue patting each other on the back. Have fun. bbl.

I think Reitsuki thought it was excellent because it involved, you know, logic and thought, something not often seen from the other side of this argument. In fact, never seen.

It was a fairly good post, but I would like to point out that ID doesn't meet the general criteria of a scientific theory. This has been brought up numerous times in previous ID threads and no one has satisfactorily addressed it yet.

I have asked you to please stop making me read these with your evil telekinetic powers as they threaten my sense that humanity is noble in reason, infinite in faculties, in form and moving express and admirable. And that we are in action like an angel, in apprehension like a god, the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals.

You violate my "experience" by making me think we are but a quintessence of dust.

From dust have you come, to dust shall you return. But in the meantime, party hardy!

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

While it does, no, this is not the reason it is excellent.



Ignoring a logical discussion in favor of quick dismissal? Typical creationist attitude, IMHO.



Not ignored. Simply wrong. No matter how many times a person says "The moon is made of cheeeeeeeeese!", he's still wrong, and nobody is going to discuss his assumption much.

To paraphrase a movie quote, "Just because you say it does not mean it's worthy of intelegent debate".

But, fine. I challenge you: Provide a single logical rebuttal of his post.

Why do people put all this effort into proving something that no one can prove? And really who gives a rats ass!



How about we put some effort into something useful, like flying cars! I was told in elementary school we would have flying cars in 2000, it is 2006, still no flying cars! Think about the future!

http://www.firebox.com/index.html?dir=firebox&action=product&pid=415

And my Everlasting Soul?

What will happen to my Steve Ellis anothology? I paid £12.99 for it and would like to know that it will survive me.

It is a two disc set, after all...

And since you are so kind as to counsel me on matters metaphysical, can you please point me to where Jesus enjoined us to "party hardy!"? The closest I could come was:which, frankly, doesn't sound like much of a party - not that there's anything wrong with it if that's your thing. I just want to make sure that I'm straight with the Man before he calls me home.

7Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.

8Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet."

They did so, 9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

11This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.

Better yet, since his post had no logical arguments for evolution or against ID, why don't you provide a single logical rebuttal of my last post. Or you can ignore it too, I'm quite used to it by now.

I believe this is where the confusion arises

"Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" isn't a porno sound track you know!

Jesus was way cool
Everybody liked Jesus
Everybody wanted to hang out with him
Anything he wanted to do, he did
He turned water into wine
And if he wanted to
He could have turned wheat into marijuana
Or sugar into cocaine
Or vitamin pills into amphetamines

He walked on the water
And swam on the land
He would tell these stories
And people would listen
He was really cool

If you were blind or lame
You just went to Jesus
And he would put his hands on you
And you would be healed
That's so cool

He could've played guitar better than Hendrix
He could've told the future
He could've baked the most delicious cake in the world
He could've scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky
He could've danced better than Barishnikov
Jesus could have been funnier than any comedian you can think of
Jesus was way cool

He told people to eat his body and drink his blood
That's so cool
Jesus was so cool
But then some people got jealous of how cool he was
So they killed him
But then he rose from the dead
He rose from the dead, danced around
Then went up to heaven
I mean, that's so cool
Jesus was way cool

No wonder there are so many Christians
- King Missle (1990)