[quote]JonP wrote:
utman316 wrote:
Oh and the gentlemen discussing “survival of the fittest”…Darwin was a little off. It is not about how “fit” or “able” you are, it is about a speices ‘reproductive success’. Think about it. What is more fit? a bunny rabbit or a wolves who are losing population each year?
I hate to use the word stupid, but really I can’t think of any other word for it. Yet another creationist that chooses to argue about something he doesn’t even understand. ‘Fit’ means exactly what you said. It is based purely on their reproductive success. Not the fit most people talk about with 6 pac abs and 20" guns. Comments like that do nothing but prove your ignorance.
[/quote]
LOL harsh! The owning is getting bad around here. This is why I warn creationists who pop up in other threads to just stay down. Really, it’s for their own good.
The good Modern Darwinist are trying to evolve their theory to account for newer findings but, that is a very untraditional approach to science.
[/quote]
It’s not an untraditional way to make science when a researcher tries to evolve a theory to account for new findings. On the contrary, it’s essential. The elaboration of scientific theories have been compared to making puzzles. A scientist sees a part of the whole image and tries to fit his own piece - new finding - in it. In most cases a scientist don’t even have a new piece, he studies an existing one. In case of a piece that don’t fit in, the scientist will not discard what has been built so far, he re-evaluates his piece or puts it aside. If the problematic pieces are too many he might try to elaborate the underlying theory - take some already attached pieces off and try to rearrange them.
Since science is a human endeavour, it bears human traits. An individual don’t discard his view’s easily, and neither do the scientific community. It has been argued that scientific progress was made possible by the fact, that a theory (Newton’s) was accepted widely, something that didn’t happen in antiquity or in China.
What comes to the topic on this thread, there is no collection of such pieces that would put evolutionary theory in doubt. Details and smaller and bigger branches are the fields where almost all research happens. The main theory don’t pose problems to the reasearchers in biology, paleontology or related fields. It works.
Standard litterature on the subject:
Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962.
Albert Einstein was a complete idiot. All of you who have ever listened to him are complete idiots as well. What did Albert ever do that was so smart? All of you guys that believe that there is absolute no intelligent design in our universe are all much smarter that Albert Einstein could ever hope to be.
After all, who did that Albert guy think he was - He believed in intelligent design!!
Interesting how schools love to teach about Albert Einstein and his genious work, but not about the fact that he believed in a intelligent designer to our universe. Why not teach the full side of Albert Einstein? Oh, I’m sorry! That would go against the NO ITELLIGENT DESIGN/EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY WAY minute percentage of the population of this planet.
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Albert Einstein was a complete idiot. All of you who have ever listened to him are complete idiots as well. What did Albert ever do that was so smart? All of you guys that believe that there is absolute no intelligent design in our universe are all much smarter that Albert Einstein could ever hope to be.
After all, who did that Albert guy think he was - He believed in intelligent design!![/quote]
So that means its true? Proove intelligent design. Done. Can’t do it. Therefore, it has no place in a science class, it is simply another mythological religious explanation for the world’s existence, no better or worse, no more valid or invalid than the Sumerian creation myths, or the ones of the Greeks.
As far as I am concerned, it should be either in a religion class or a mythology class. End of story
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Albert Einstein was a complete idiot. All of you who have ever listened to him are complete idiots as well. What did Albert ever do that was so smart? All of you guys that believe that there is absolute no intelligent design in our universe are all much smarter that Albert Einstein could ever hope to be.
After all, who did that Albert guy think he was - He believed in intelligent design!!
Interesting how schools love to teach about Albert Einstein and his genious work, but not about the fact that he believed in a intelligent designer to our universe. Why not teach the full side of Albert Einstein? Oh, I’m sorry! That would go against the NO ITELLIGENT DESIGN/EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY WAY minute percentage of the population of this planet.[/quote]
Einstein was a fallible human being ergo evolution is wrong/ID is right?
Jesus… that thing with Einstein, what are you on? He was not in any way advocating what we now call ID. he beleived in the scientific method - but beleived that is was a puzzle for us to solve by god, not that evolution was wrong. even if he beleived otherwise, it makes little difference to his scientific discoveries; after all, newton beleived he would be know forever for his theology, not his physics.
The essential point with ID is simple: in science class we learn science and science is defined by the scientific method. there is no such thing as certainty in science. what we do is explain result by theory or prove theory by experiment. to paraphrase Einstein, we can never be proved right, but we can be proved wrong.
There have been over 10,000 articles on evolution published in peer review journals, and not a single one on ID. ID is based on things that are not there - we cannot validate it by experiment, where as we can validate evolution. you can’t prove irreducable complexity, it’s just a hunch.
Essentially, even if the advocates of ID did get there act together and publish even one piece of research, the fraction of the science of how we came to be as we are that that would represent is far too small for it to be worth teaching when a teacher only has a few weeks to cover the huge field of evolution.
“Of course I would. Sex is sex. Of course, I’d definitly stick it in her ass when she wasn’t paying attention, just for the hell of it. If she gets mad…laugh.”
Intelligent design “doesn’t belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin’s explanation is unjustified,” he wrote.
“It only creates confusion between the scientific and philosophical and religious planes.”
[quote]orion wrote:
Einstein was a fallible human being ergo evolution is wrong/ID is right?
[/quote]
Are you fallible? Are Evolutionists fallible? Everybody is fallible. Who isn’t? One thing is for certain though, Albert Einstein was a hell of a lot smarter than you or me.
Intelligent design “doesn’t belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin’s explanation is unjustified,” he wrote.
“It only creates confusion between the scientific and philosophical and religious planes.”
End quote.
Even the Catholics get it. Sheesh.[/quote]
And if you studied Catholicism and the Bible, you would find that many of their teaching completely contradict the Bible itself. The Catholic religion is based on their traditions, not what the Bible actually teaches.
And if you studied Catholicism and the Bible, you would find that many of their teaching completely contradict the Bible itself. The Catholic religion is based on their traditions, not what the Bible actually teaches.
[/quote]
This is true. They put the teachings of Jesus and the works of the Apostles ahead of a book.
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
And if you studied Catholicism and the Bible, you would find that many of their teaching completely contradict the Bible itself. The Catholic religion is based on their traditions, not what the Bible actually teaches.
[/quote]
So they changed their minds a little bit over the last few centuries…
Not as fast as science does, but still…
Is that the underlying sin? Hybris? By thinking and trying to find solutions for themselves they anger the gods?
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
orion wrote:
Einstein was a fallible human being ergo evolution is wrong/ID is right?
Are you fallible? Are Evolutionists fallible? Everybody is fallible. Who isn’t? One thing is for certain though, Albert Einstein was a hell of a lot smarter than you or me.
[/quote]
Typical angry anti-evolutionist. What is your point? Do you honestly think Einstein would have supported the teaching of intelligent design as science?
I normally do not post concerning topics like this cause anything anybody has to say is about as effective as a 200lb lardo wearing a weight-belt while doing 135 lb bench presses.
BUT I must interject…ID is NOT I repeat NOT a religious or Christian view point for the origins of life by any stretch of the imagination. I don?t care if you have the imagination of a friendless school kid.
ID itself was authored by an evolutionist, Micheal Behe, who I might add, is STILL an evolutionist even after writing the book that started it all??Darwin?s Black Box?. All ID says is that Darwinian Evolution does not and cannot account for many of the complicities in living organisms. It does not purport to replace the Macroevolution mechanisms by which currently formed organisms where created (better put developed). And it has volumes of molecular biology evidence to support its claims.
Yes, some Christian groups have gotten behind this ID movement but that makes ID as much Christian as standing in your garage makes you a car.
With that being said, Let us not forget ?Inherit the Wind?
And if you studied Catholicism and the Bible, you would find that many of their teaching completely contradict the Bible itself. The Catholic religion is based on their traditions, not what the Bible actually teaches.
This is true. They put the teachings of Jesus and the works of the Apostles ahead of a book.[/quote]
[quote]KneeBar wrote:
BUT I must interject…ID is NOT I repeat NOT a religious or Christian view point for the origins of life by any stretch of the imagination. I don?t care if you have the imagination of a friendless school kid.[/quote]
Read the Dover ruling. ID is exactly that. Judge Jones goes into a lot of details when explaining the evidence that shows that ID is simply creationism repackaged to appear “scientific.”
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Albert Einstein was a complete idiot. All of you who have ever listened to him are complete idiots as well. What did Albert ever do that was so smart? All of you guys that believe that there is absolute no intelligent design in our universe are all much smarter that Albert Einstein could ever hope to be.
After all, who did that Albert guy think he was - He believed in intelligent design!!
Interesting how schools love to teach about Albert Einstein and his genious work, but not about the fact that he believed in a intelligent designer to our universe. Why not teach the full side of Albert Einstein? Oh, I’m sorry! That would go against the NO ITELLIGENT DESIGN/EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY WAY minute percentage of the population of this planet.[/quote]
This illustrates the logical fallacy of appeal to authority - a person smarter than any of us believed in X, therefore X must be true.
Yes, Einstein did in fact believe in a prime mover type of Supreme Being who did not bother to intervene in human affairs. I share his belief. As long as we’re talking about Einstein, consider this: during the last years of his life he struggled to find a Unified Field Theory but couldn’t.
Rather than throw his hands up in frustration and insert a Supreme Being to fill the gaps in his Unified Field Theory, he simply admitted that he could not come with one and that the task was better left for someone else. ID proponents do just what Einstein didn’t - they throw their hands up in frustration at the gaps in evolution and say “Oh well, God did it.” This is bad science.
Question: If you had an illness that your doctor couldn’t diagnose, would you:
A) Seek second, third, and fourth opinions to determine the nature of the condition and possible treatments.
B) Throw your hands up and say, “Oh well, I guess it’s God’s will that I get sick and die. I’ll just go home and wait for death to come.”
And if you studied Catholicism and the Bible, you would find that many of their teaching completely contradict the Bible itself. The Catholic religion is based on their traditions, not what the Bible actually teaches.
This is true. They put the teachings of Jesus and the works of the Apostles ahead of a book.
just for arguments sake
Where do they get those teachings of Jesus?
[/quote]
There are more gospels than just those included in the Bible.
I am no expert in the area but the Catholic Church seems to draw its teachings from a broader area than many of the other Christian churches.
The Catholic Church also does not interpret the old testament literally.
This results in much disagreement between the Catholic and other churches even before they get into politics.
