Intelligent Design... Again!

27 Nov 2005

Quote by marmalaid
Where's the proof of Darwinism? There's at least as much 'proof' of Devine design as there is of evolution. What's the phrase, I can't remember it, something like corelation does not equal causation.
Evolution: Man came from the apes because??? we look fairly similar, we share 98% of our DNA.
Creationism: We share 40% of our DNA with bananas, if we came from apes then why are pigs more genetically similar? Why are pigs used to grow organs and not primates?
You talk of evidence and agreement, evidence only means something has happened, it does not say what caused it. What you say was caused by natural selection or evolution, I could say was caused by God's great plan. Agreement? What does that mean? People agreed that the Earth was flat, didn't make it right, it was just right in their eyes until it was disproven. I believe that Darwinism is the same, it fits your evidence and so it must be true. In time it may be disproven, but I don't believe that Darwinism will ever be proved.

Dawins theory of natural selecion has been proved countless times. Take the example I gave before about MSSA (Methacillin Sensative Staph aureus) evolving to MRSA (Methecilli Resistance Staph auureus). There are many other examples of nattural selection , especially in the relms of microbiology, unfortunatey non that I can quote off hand (and I'm far too pissed to search for any). smile

27 Nov 2005

deleted

27 Nov 2005

Quote by couple_ne2000

Where's the proof of Darwinism? There's at least as much 'proof' of Devine design as there is of evolution. What's the phrase, I can't remember it, something like corelation does not equal causation.
Evolution: Man came from the apes because??? we look fairly similar, we share 98% of our DNA.
Creationism: We share 40% of our DNA with bananas, if we came from apes then why are pigs more genetically similar? Why are pigs used to grow organs and not primates?
You talk of evidence and agreement, evidence only means something has happened, it does not say what caused it. What you say was caused by natural selection or evolution, I could say was caused by God's great plan. Agreement? What does that mean? People agreed that the Earth was flat, didn't make it right, it was just right in their eyes until it was disproven. I believe that Darwinism is the same, it fits your evidence and so it must be true. In time it may be disproven, but I don't believe that Darwinism will ever be proved.

Dawins theory of natural selecion has been proved countless times. Take the example I gave before about MSSA (Methacillin Sensative Staph aureus) evolving to MRSA (Methecilli Resistance Staph auureus). There are many other examples of nattural selection , especially in the relms of microbiology, unfortunatey non that I can quote off hand (and I'm far too pissed to search for any). smile

The fact that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics does not prove that the entire theory of evolution by natural selection is 'fact'. It proves no more than that bacteria adapt to their surroundings.. From that and many other observations, we can extrapolate a well-supported theory that higher organisms are likely to do similar, probably over a much longer period of time. But with respect, that is not 'proof' (IMHO :) ), despite what Richard Dawkins might have us believe. (We'd better set aside the vast area of debate about the meaning, both scientific and philosophical, of 'proof')
Don't believe (and I use the word advisedly) everything Richard Dawkins says; he may be a great evolutionary biologist, but his philosophy is pants and his theology is worse.

27 Nov 2005

Quote by DarkEyedPhil

Where's the proof of Darwinism? There's at least as much 'proof' of Devine design as there is of evolution. What's the phrase, I can't remember it, something like corelation does not equal causation.
Evolution: Man came from the apes because??? we look fairly similar, we share 98% of our DNA.
Creationism: We share 40% of our DNA with bananas, if we came from apes then why are pigs more genetically similar? Why are pigs used to grow organs and not primates?
You talk of evidence and agreement, evidence only means something has happened, it does not say what caused it. What you say was caused by natural selection or evolution, I could say was caused by God's great plan. Agreement? What does that mean? People agreed that the Earth was flat, didn't make it right, it was just right in their eyes until it was disproven. I believe that Darwinism is the same, it fits your evidence and so it must be true. In time it may be disproven, but I don't believe that Darwinism will ever be proved.

Dawins theory of natural selecion has been proved countless times. Take the example I gave before about MSSA (Methacillin Sensative Staph aureus) evolving to MRSA (Methecilli Resistance Staph auureus). There are many other examples of nattural selection , especially in the relms of microbiology, unfortunatey non that I can quote off hand (and I'm far too pissed to search for any). smile

The fact that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics does not prove that the entire theory of evolution by natural selection is 'fact'. It proves no more than that bacteria adapt to their surroundings.. From that and many other observations, we can extrapolate a well-supported theory that higher organisms are likely to do similar, probably over a much longer period of time. But with respect, that is not 'proof' (IMHO :) ), despite what Richard Dawkins might have us believe. (We'd better set aside the vast area of debate about the meaning, both scientific and philosophical, of 'proof')
Don't believe (and I use the word advisedly) everything Richard Dawkins says; he may be a great evolutionary biologist, but his philosophy is pants and his theology is worse.
there is loads of evidence to support the theory of evolution, none to support creationism.
i would say that the fossil evidence alone is proof of evolution. science produces theories that can be tested. this one has been tested and has been found to be valid. it's not a "belief" in the sense that creationism is

27 Nov 2005

Its still on topic, so i thought i'd show everyone this to lighten the mood.
Forget evolution, forget creationism....
BELIEVE IN THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! lol

:lol: :lol:

Convert humans into Pastafarian believers!
Who can get the high score!? Mine is 24 at the mo! :lol:

27 Nov 2005

Quote by jason1974
there is loads of evidence to support the theory of evolution, none to support creationism.

Slight tangent but still relevant. Archaeology can prove beyond reasonable doubt that parts of the bible are true .... so why is that a reason to believe parts aren't. Archaeologists just haven't managed to find all the pieces of that jigsaw ....... archaeology is after all a science.
C x

27 Nov 2005

Quote by Calista

there is loads of evidence to support the theory of evolution, none to support creationism.

Slight tangent but still relevant. Archaeology can prove beyond reasonable doubt that parts of the bible are true .... so why is that a reason to believe parts aren't. Archaeologists just haven't managed to find all the pieces of that jigsaw ....... archaeology is after all a science.
C x
the bible includes a lot of historical evidence, but also a lot of bullshit.
genesis chapter 1 is bullshit

27 Nov 2005

Quote by jason1974

there is loads of evidence to support the theory of evolution, none to support creationism.

Slight tangent but still relevant. Archaeology can prove beyond reasonable doubt that parts of the bible are true .... so why is that a reason to believe parts aren't. Archaeologists just haven't managed to find all the pieces of that jigsaw ....... archaeology is after all a science.
C x
the bible includes a lot of historical evidence, but also a lot of bullshit.
genesis chapter 1 is bullshit
And you can prove this how exactly? That's your opinion not fact.
C x

27 Nov 2005

What Mal said :twisted: confused

27 Nov 2005

Evoltionists and creationists both have the same problem: They each think one or other "theory" must be right and that they are mutually exclusive. This makes arguments from both camps a tediously predictable game of pseudo-intellectual pingpong along the lines of "You can't prove your theory, therefore I must be right." ... "No, you're wrong which proves me right."
Total waste of time.
First of all, creation and evolution do not logically rule each other out... they could both be right, and secondly, even if they were mutually exclusive, neither side has proved the other wrong so their conclusions are based on wishful thinking rather than evidence. This relegates the scientist and the theologian equally to a position of mere doctrine.
The difference of course being the creationist cannot ever be proved wrong even if he IS wrong, so it's an intellectual cop-out... you can't prove me wrong, therefore you must be wrong.
People above the age of six occasionally learn how to think a bit more productively than that. rolleyes

27 Nov 2005

Quote by Ice Pie
People above the age of six occasionally learn how to think a bit more productively than that.

Ohh you so do things for me when you're in this "mood". worship

I quite agree with what you've said :shock:
C x

27 Nov 2005

Quote by Ice Pie
Evoltionists and creationists both have the same problem: They each think one or other "theory" must be right and that they are mutually exclusive. This makes arguments from both camps a tediously predictable game of pseudo-intellectual pingpong along the lines of "You can't prove your theory, therefore I must be right." ... "No, you're wrong which proves me right."
Total waste of time.
First of all, creation and evolution do not logically rule each other out... they could both be right, and secondly, even if they were mutually exclusive, neither side has proved the other wrong so their conclusions are based on wishful thinking rather than evidence. This relegates the scientist and the theologian equally to a position of mere doctrine.
The difference of course being the creationist cannot ever be proved wrong even if he IS wrong, so it's an intellectual cop-out... you can't prove me wrong, therefore you must be wrong.
People above the age of six occasionally learn how to think a bit more productively than that.

And for a encore he proved that black was white, and promptly got run over at a zebra crossing (as they were called in them days)
Or did he disappear in a puff of greasy black smoke â€¦â€¦â€¦.. I am so getting my old comedy stuff muxed up.
I'm with him .... ^ ^ ^

27 Nov 2005

if god said "let their be light" and their was light
why do we have night rolleyes

27 Nov 2005

Quote by markz
if god said "let their be light" and their was light
why do we have night

because if you read further along that passage you'll see that he created a division between the dark and light , he called one night and one day ......
and god saw that it was good ..... :giggle:
Sorry couldn't resist kiss

C x

28 Nov 2005

ah see by the time the teacher got to that bit I was on my way to the head's office
again biggrin

28 Nov 2005

Quote by Tra-n-Lee
How can it be fair to dismiss what so many people believe as fact in preferance for what many other people see as fact. Darwinsim, atheism and agnosticism are as much a belief as creationism, what's your belief and label from the above? Why should your belief be taught and not mine? If that's not fundamentalism what is?

We are NOT talking about beliefs here. You can't teach beliefs in American schools, it's (rightly or wrongly) against their law. We are talking about scientific theories, which are being taught in science lessons.
FSM and Evolution are theories which fit the facts, and Intelligent design is not.Applying scientific rigour to theories and disregarding theories that do not fit the facts is fundamental to understanding science, otherwise schools would be teaching phologiston, the 4 greek elements and witchcraft in science lessons.
From what i understand of it, basically its the American Christian Right trying to extend a growing stranglehold in the politics of America into its schools by trying to claim that Intelligent Design is a legitimate theory.
Now, quite clearly, its not a legitimate "theory" - even the most religious of people must know that. It isn't based on any factual evidence, and thats what a mortal being must have to create a theory or an evaluation. If their is no factual evidence, then obviously they're can be no legitimate reason for spreading an "idea" so wide across a generation such as the American youth.
Mr_D? i could google you any number of sites which contradict that statement?
i take it you have absolute proof that darwin knew what he was on about then? confused

have a look at what Darwin had to say about genetics and narural selection? t'was kinda bullshit, cos he had no understanding whatsoever of genetics, DNA, blah blah blah. he made some educated guesses, nothing more? really. the theory in it's entirety is a tad vague, and absolutely unscientific?
i think you'd have to conclude Darwin didn't really know WTF he was on about? it's just a "theory" after all? dunno

tra'n'lee? the intelligent design debate has a wealth of philosophical argument behind it. about as much as the theory of evolution in fact. they are only that. the "theory" bit is a bit of a great big hint? :?
i was taught creationism in every school i ever attended? we called the class R.E.?
course, i'd have a problem if a teacher said God creating the known universe is an absolute fact, cos i know it ain't? i'd also have a problem with a teacher telling me the world evolved from primeval slime that we don't really understand at all, but that's surely how it must have been? :dunno:
both are theories. both have about as much explanatory power as each other? both are theories with no real basis in fact, as are"mere" statements of belief?
Q.E.D.? :dunno:
neil x x x ;)

28 Nov 2005

Quote by markz
ah see by the time the teacher got to that bit I was on my way to the head's office
again

I'd probably have been asleep if RE had een taught in my school!
C x

28 Nov 2005

Quote by neilinleeds
How can it be fair to dismiss what so many people believe as fact in preferance for what many other people see as fact. Darwinsim, atheism and agnosticism are as much a belief as creationism, what's your belief and label from the above? Why should your belief be taught and not mine? If that's not fundamentalism what is?

We are NOT talking about beliefs here. You can't teach beliefs in American schools, it's (rightly or wrongly) against their law. We are talking about scientific theories, which are being taught in science lessons.
FSM and Evolution are theories which fit the facts, and Intelligent design is not.Applying scientific rigour to theories and disregarding theories that do not fit the facts is fundamental to understanding science, otherwise schools would be teaching phologiston, the 4 greek elements and witchcraft in science lessons.
From what i understand of it, basically its the American Christian Right trying to extend a growing stranglehold in the politics of America into its schools by trying to claim that Intelligent Design is a legitimate theory.
Now, quite clearly, its not a legitimate "theory" - even the most religious of people must know that. It isn't based on any factual evidence, and thats what a mortal being must have to create a theory or an evaluation. If their is no factual evidence, then obviously they're can be no legitimate reason for spreading an "idea" so wide across a generation such as the American youth.
Mr_D? i could google you any number of sites which contradict that statement?
i take it you have absolute proof that darwin knew what he was on about then? confused

have a look at what Darwin had to say about genetics and natrural selection? t'was kinda bullshit, cos he had no understanding whatsoever of genetics, DNA, blah blah blah. he made some educated guesses, nothing more? really. the theory in it's entirety is a tad vague, and absolutely unscientific?
i think you'd have to conclude Darwin didn't really know WTF he was on about? it's just a "theory" after all? dunno

tra'n'lee? the intelligent design debate hads a wealth of philosophical argument behind it. about as much as the theory of evolution in fact. they are only that. the "theory" is a bit of a great big hint? :
i was taught creationism in every svchool i ever attended? we called the class R.E.?
course, i'd have a problem if a teacher said God creating the known universae is an absolute fact, cos i know it ain't? i'd also have a propblem with a teacher telling me the world evgolved from primeval slime that we do9n't really und4erstand at all, but that's surely how it must hyave been?
both are theories. both have about as much explanatory power. both are theories with no real basis in fact, as are"mere" statements of belief?
Q.E.D.? :dunno:
neil x x x ;)
You distract him, Iâ€™ll pull away his soap box :shock:
( sorry mate, just trying to be a little lighthearted, we all have things that we feel strongly about, and why shouldn't we air them from time to time? YOU GO BOY oh yeah oh yeah .... bollox :shock: listenin to the wrong music as well rolleyes

)

28 Nov 2005

Quote by Pete_sw
You distract him, Iâ€™ll pull away his soap box :shock:

You're joking aren't you? Neil's best posts are from his soapbox ...... it's like glued to his feet or summat ... haven't you ever noticed he walks funny (neil you don't I'm joking) I think it's illegal anyway ... summat in the commandments that says ...
Thou shall not covert or steal thy neighbours box (or is that a stray b?)
Cx

28 Nov 2005

Quote by Calista

You distract him, Iâ€™ll pull away his soap box :shock:

You're joking aren't you? Neil's best posts are from his soapbox ...... it's like glued to his feet or summat ... haven't you ever noticed he walks funny (neil you don't I'm joking) I think it's illegal anyway ... summat in the commandments that says ...
Thou shall not covert or steal thy neighbours box (or is that a stray b?)
Cx
:shock: :shock: :shock:
:laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove:

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
god it hurts :rotflmao:

28 Nov 2005

Quote by Calista
Thou shall not covert or steal thy neighbours box

You're thinking of an ass - well you were thinking of Neil weren't you?? confused

:? :?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

28 Nov 2005

Quote by Calista

You distract him, Iâ€™ll pull away his soap box :shock:

You're joking aren't you? Neil's best posts are from his soapbox ...... it's like glued to his feet or summat ... haven't you ever noticed he walks funny (neil you don't I'm joking) I think it's illegal anyway ... summat in the commandments that says ...
Thou shall not covert or steal thy neighbours box (or is that a stray b?)
Cx
:shock: :shock: :shock:
:laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove:

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
god it hurts :rotflmao:
erm ......... did u forget to type? . . :shock:

28 Nov 2005

Quote by Pete_sw

You distract him, Iâ€™ll pull away his soap box :shock:

You're joking aren't you? Neil's best posts are from his soapbox ...... it's like glued to his feet or summat ... haven't you ever noticed he walks funny (neil you don't I'm joking) I think it's illegal anyway ... summat in the commandments that says ...
Thou shall not covert or steal thy neighbours box (or is that a stray b?)
Cx
:shock: :shock: :shock:
:laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove:

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
god it hurts :rotflmao:
erm ......... did u forget to type? . . :shock:
Nope hit quote by mistake and then before I could delete the post sarge had posted mad

C x

28 Nov 2005

Quote by Calista

You distract him, Iâ€™ll pull away his soap box :shock:

You're joking aren't you? Neil's best posts are from his soapbox ...... it's like glued to his feet or summat ... haven't you ever noticed he walks funny (neil you don't I'm joking) I think it's illegal anyway ... summat in the commandments that says ...
Thou shall not covert or steal thy neighbours box (or is that a stray b?)
Cx
:shock: :shock: :shock:
:laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove: :laughabove:

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
god it hurts :rotflmao:
erm ......... did u forget to type? . . :shock:
Nope hit quote by mistake and then before I could delete the post sarge had posted mad

C x
BaaaD Sarge

:smackbottom: :smackbottom: :smackbottom:

28 Nov 2005

I have deleted the post so it looks even sillier now!!! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

28 Nov 2005

Quote by Sgt Bilko
I have deleted the post so it looks even sillier now!!! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Git!!!

28 Nov 2005

:gagged: :gagged:

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

28 Nov 2005

Quote by neilinleeds
FSM and Evolution are theories which fit the facts, and Intelligent design is not.

Mr_D? i could google you any number of sites which contradict that statement?
i take it you have absolute proof that darwin knew what he was on about then? confused

have a look at what Darwin had to say about genetics and narural selection? t'was kinda bullshit, cos he had no understanding whatsoever of genetics, DNA, blah blah blah. he made some educated guesses, nothing more? really. the theory in it's entirety is a tad vague, and absolutely unscientific?
Are you really attempting to debunk evolution? I'm sure you can google any number of crackpot sites that support Intelligent Design, but that doesn't mean they are right. Even the Pope admitted that evolution is "more than just a theory"!
The theory of Evolution didn't arrive fully formed in Darwin's "Origin of Species", and Darwin didn't have all the answers about DNA and genetics, but that doesn't make evolution wrong. Evolution correctly predicted the existence of common ancestors for distinct species, which we have now found in fossil records, and it provides a rational explanation for the topological similarities in skeletons between mammals. Evolutionary drift can be used to calculate the time periods when islands became disconnected from the mainland, and the results match us with geological records.
Intelligent Design on the other hand can't account for exctinct species, 'badly designed' species, or species that existed before man, without admitting that a) God was wrong and b) The Garden of Eden was a myth, or resorting to such kludges as 'god put fossils there to trick us'.

28 Nov 2005

Quote by Mister_Discreet
FSM and Evolution are theories which fit the facts, and Intelligent design is not.

Mr_D? i could google you any number of sites which contradict that statement?
i take it you have absolute proof that darwin knew what he was on about then? confused

have a look at what Darwin had to say about genetics and narural selection? t'was kinda bullshit, cos he had no understanding whatsoever of genetics, DNA, blah blah blah. he made some educated guesses, nothing more? really. the theory in it's entirety is a tad vague, and absolutely unscientific?
Are you really attempting to debunk evolution? I'm sure you can google any number of crackpot sites that support Intelligent Design, but that doesn't mean they are right. Even the Pope admitted that evolution is "more than just a theory"!
The theory of Evolution didn't arrive fully formed in Darwin's "Origin of Species", and Darwin didn't have all the answers about DNA and genetics, but that doesn't make evolution wrong. Evolution correctly predicted the existence of common ancestors for distinct species, which we have now found in fossil records.

ha! god stuck 'em there for the likes of you, and you fell for his trick! flipa

;)
ok ok . . . . sorry . . . . it's far too late, but i did have a point here somewhere, and i'm damned well gonna find it . . . .
oh yeah . . . t'is just a theory! far as i know, you have to be able to disprove a theory, and that's the entire point of scientific method. i really don't know if evolutionary theory is any more falsifiable than intelligent design, but neither are all that solid? dunno

you can no more prove or disprove the theory of evolution than i can prove or disprove that some random planet around some random star might just possibly be made of green cheese? :dunno: ((( and don't try and confound me with spectroscopy, cos i'll . . . . well i'll prolly just wander off into another thread, so there! :P )))
i believe in evolution, but it's no more valid than, and i'm not equipped to argue against, some equally convincing arguments for intelligent design? theory is theory is theory . . . till it becomes fact. evolution is NOT fact . . . yet! it might agree with the data we have so far, but a scientific fact it is not?
that was kinda what i was driving at . . . . blah blah blah . . . . :P
as for you calista. this is a serious pigging row this is! we'll have none of your vague references to my box and what have you! mad

:P
n x x x :P
p.s. mr_d? i've now actually read your post, and realise you beat me to the "god put 'em there to trick us" gag! that'll teach me eh? or maybe not! rolleyes

*removes foot from gob*
i know what i'm on about anyways! :P