[quote]FLoortom wrote:
I just dont understand why people even debate IDers/creationists. They’re a joke–totally irrelevant. Other than some backwards pockets in the US and the Muslim Middle East no one takes them seriously at all. Just continue to laugh at them and ignore them. They’ll go away eventually.
Just lol@ the “Macroevolution has never proven!!” dullards. Could you imagine how deluded and ignorant one would have to be to make that statement? Why even try to engage such a moron in a debate?
[/quote]
Thread winner. End of discussion.
I mean, proponents of Intelligent Design are hilarious, don’t get me wrong or anything, but after a while it tends to get old.
[quote]DoubleDyce wrote:
There is indirect evidence of a lot of animals, but oddly almost no evidence, direct of indirect, of human evolution. [/quote]
Have you ever heard of endogenous retroviral DNA my friend? Also, are you familiar with human chromosome 2? Both of these examples are quite solid evidence for common descent.
I think you give most Christians too much credit. The useless hair-splitting is ALL they care about. They don’t care about or even think about things like moral relativism, which I don’t believe is the problem you think its is. Japan is the least religious country in the world, and they have very low crime rates. Certainly lower than the US, which is about the most religious country in the world. In fact, looking through history, I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that religion inspires morality.
The problem with this debate is everyone thinks they’re a biologist all of a sudden. A few hours of leisure reading in your spare time doesn’t necessarily make you competent to judge between evolution and intelligent design. To the layman, intelligent design’s arguments can seem convincing, but evolutionary biologists can–and do–demolish these arguments. There is no debate about evolution within biology. Intelligent design is a blatant attempt by evangelical conservatives to entrench their views in public education.
When an overwhelming majority of the experts in a field agree on something (EVOLUTION) and the public disagrees with them, I’m going to roll with the experts. I guess I’m an elitist; I’d rather take the opinion of a PhD on his topic of expertise than the opinion of some dude thumbing through biology papers in his spare time.
The problem with this debate is everyone thinks they’re a biologist all of a sudden. A few hours of leisure reading in your spare time doesn’t necessarily make you competent to judge between evolution and intelligent design. To the layman, intelligent design’s arguments can seem convincing, but evolutionary biologists can–and do–demolish these arguments. There is no debate about evolution within biology. Intelligent design is a blatant attempt by evangelical conservatives to entrench their views in public education.
When an overwhelming majority of the experts in a field agree on something (EVOLUTION) and the public disagrees with them, I’m going to roll with the experts. I guess I’m an elitist; I’d rather take the opinion of a PhD on his topic of expertise than the opinion of some dude thumbing through biology papers in his spare time.
ID’ers are simply Bible bashers who want to convert more people.
Why do people bitch and moan about “evil Muslims” overrunning the country by force of numbers when they’ll turn around and in the same breath advocate the same sort of thing?
Keep the religion in Churches/Temples/Mosques people. It has no place in schools.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Yet again, I’m not religious. I’m not defending ID. But I think evolution is equally, if not more likely to be bullshit.
Evolution is a THEORY. If teachers these days are so retarded they can’t point this out, then that’s a different problem entirely. I seem to recall being told that evolution was a THEORY pretty early on.
Carbon dating has prove the earth has been around long before he supposed 3000 years the earth has been around.
To a lot of people, evolution is the most plausible explanation.
And RE: mutations, you should read up on adaption and exaptation.[/quote]
Yes, of course it is a theory. But it is delivered as a “theory- wink wink; the other guy’s are a little slow.”
Kind of like the same guy saying theory will follow up with something like this.
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
My point is that if the theories aren’t testable, then they aren’t science.
I know. But saying that people who believe in evolution are just as illogical as people who believe in ID is ridiculous. Evolution is a VERY, VERY well educated guess. It is based on observation, research and reason. ID is not.[/quote]
The observation, research and reason you claim to have is as credible as the bible and the reported eye witness testimonies; researching into history of the culture of people’s whom follow ID, and the reasoning they have for such.
[quote]Floortom wrote:
There are hundreds of instances of speciation. Add in the obvious molecular evidence and the fossil record and you can see why you and your Taliban creationsist buddies are laughed at so heartily. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\
eagerly awaits a retort referencing a “Evolution protest pamphlet” from the 1950s LMAO!!
[/quote]
If you want to be taken seriously, don’t attempt to strengthen your argument by trying to insult the other parties intelligence. It is pointless and redundant.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
You seemed to be implying that complex structures such as the eye cannot be fully explained by evolutionary theory. That is what I was responding to.
You are correct that the fossil record does not show perfect, continuous evolutionary sequences. That is why it is called the THEORY of evolution.
[/quote]
– Nother Honest question alert–
Could we perhaps relate the big bang theory where I believe something came out of nothingness by dividing by zero (or some such thing) and that as long as as much nothing is created as something, it is feasible?
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?
The other problem with your baby steps to change is that the steps would have to get a statistically significant higher chance of survival, meaning not baby steps.[/quote]
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
mcdugga wrote: I think the problem occurs when those who take an agnostic/atheisic position believe they are then obligated to live by a humanistic philosophy and the moral relativism that accompanies it. Moral relativism affects not only individuals, but societies and, usually, not for the better. I think this is why Christians fear the universal acceptance of abiogenes and evolution, not the useless hair-splitting of evolution vs. 6-day creation.
I think you give most Christians too much credit. The useless hair-splitting is ALL they care about. They don’t care about or even think about things like moral relativism, which I don’t believe is the problem you think its is. Japan is the least religious country in the world, and they have very low crime rates. Certainly lower than the US, which is about the most religious country in the world. In fact, looking through history, I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that religion inspires morality.
[/quote]
I just want to point out one flaw in your comment. If you are arguing about morality, it would not be a good idea to bring up a crime rate. If someone is saying that a place is an immoral place, then crime there would be relative to the morality of the given society.
In other words; If society does not consider it immoral to murder someone, they would not have a law prohibiting it. So when people are murdered, there would be no spike in “crime rates”.
That is an extreme example, but food for thought nonetheless.
Could we perhaps relate the big bang theory where I believe something came out of nothingness by dividing by zero (or some such thing) and that as long as as much nothing is created as something, it is feasible?
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?
– Honest question alert end–[/quote]
Who said the universe came out of nothing? We don’t know WHAT came before the Big Bang. We don’t even understand the fundamental principles of time! Only recently have we realized that time isn’t a straight line, but rather a sphere. No beginning, no end, and infinite possibilities.
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Yes, of course it is a theory. But it is delivered as a “theory- wink wink; the other guy’s are a little slow.”[/quote]
Well what did you expect? IDer’s poo poo everything that is remotely different to their interpretation of events so much that it’s not funny. I expect evolution will go some major change in our lifetime, and that only goes to show that science is always changing.
IDer’s base their concepts off a book that was written back when we didn’t know ANYTHING. We thought the earth was flat for God’s sake!
But now we have explanations, we know the earth isn’t flat. A lot of that stuff is REDUNDANT.
Could we perhaps relate the big bang theory where I believe something came out of nothingness by dividing by zero (or some such thing) and that as long as as much nothing is created as something, it is feasible?
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?
– Honest question alert end–
Who said the universe came out of nothing? We don’t know WHAT came before the Big Bang. We don’t even understand the fundamental principles of time! Only recently have we realized that time isn’t a straight line, but rather a sphere. No beginning, no end, and infinite possibilities.[/quote]
It’s just another theory, that could be an argument for intelligent design, or evolution.
Could we perhaps relate the big bang theory where I believe something came out of nothingness by dividing by zero (or some such thing) and that as long as as much nothing is created as something, it is feasible?
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?
– Honest question alert end–
Who said the universe came out of nothing? We don’t know WHAT came before the Big Bang. We don’t even understand the fundamental principles of time! Only recently have we realized that time isn’t a straight line, but rather a sphere. No beginning, no end, and infinite possibilities.
It’s just another theory, that could be an argument for intelligent design, or evolution.[/quote]
exactly, I don’t want half baked ideas taught in school. Especially when we gloss over things like genetics, cells and their parts, and etc. It is moronic to even devote a week to learning evolution, when there is [b]factual[b/] information out there that could be taught in it’s place.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
exactly, I don’t want half baked ideas taught in school. Especially when we gloss over things like genetics, cells and their parts, and etc. It is moronic to even devote a week to learning evolution, when there is factual information out there that could be taught in it’s place.[/quote]
It’s hardly half-baked. You being a weekend warrior on macro evolution hardly qualifies you to shit all over what is still a theory. What set ID apart is that it is a blatant attempt to secure another foothold in a society that is fast losing that need for fairy tales.
Could we perhaps relate the big bang theory where I believe something came out of nothingness by dividing by zero (or some such thing) and that as long as as much nothing is created as something, it is feasible?
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?
– Honest question alert end–
Who said the universe came out of nothing? We don’t know WHAT came before the Big Bang. We don’t even understand the fundamental principles of time! Only recently have we realized that time isn’t a straight line, but rather a sphere. No beginning, no end, and infinite possibilities.
It’s just another theory, that could be an argument for intelligent design, or evolution.
exactly, I don’t want half baked ideas taught in school. Especially when we gloss over things like genetics, cells and their parts, and etc. It is moronic to even devote a week to learning evolution, when there is [b]factual[b/] information out there that could be taught in it’s place.[/quote]
Keep telling yourself learning evolution is moronic,I’m sure you will grow up to be a deep well of knowledge and insight.
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
My point is that if the theories aren’t testable, then they aren’t science.
I know. But saying that people who believe in evolution are just as illogical as people who believe in ID is ridiculous. Evolution is a VERY, VERY well educated guess. It is based on observation, research and reason. ID is not.
The observation, research and reason you claim to have is as credible as the bible and the reported eye witness testimonies; researching into history of the culture of people’s whom follow ID, and the reasoning they have for such.
You’ll need to do a better comparison then that.[/quote]
You’re wrong on this, sorry. Evolution is far FAR more credible than ID, it simply doesn’t seem that way if you haven’t learned any biology. IDers aren’t stupid, many are biochemists and ex-evolutionary biologists themselves. They can give all the appearance of knowing what they’re talking about, these are smart guys, they know far more about biology than you or I. But they can’t fool the experts. So maybe you or I can’t see the flaws in their arguments, but an evolutionary biologist would know offhand of a few examples that shoot irreducible complexity–for example–to pieces.
It’s OK to admit you’re not competent to judge between two choices. We all have to consult with experts, noone can know everything. I don’t mean to make an argument from authority, but there’s simply no reason to take ID seriously given that everyone in biology has shot their arguments to pieces time and time again.
But since you don’t buy into that, just look at motive. If you understand where ID proponents come from, you might get a better sense for why they’re full of shit. They don’t care about biology or knowledge at all. They care about religious indoctrination. This isn’t a scientific theory based on data that emerged to challenge the theory of evolution, it’s an intrusion into the scientific discourse by religious ideologues. This isn’t a case of a rogue theory eventually becoming the scientific mainstream and causing a paradigm shift, because ID isn’t a scientific theory at all. ID will NEVER oust evolutionary theory because ID isn’t a scientific theory.