NationStates Jolt Archive

This doesn't just frustrate me, it scares me. Not only do we now have these damn 'faith' schools and 'acadamies' popping up all over the show but now we're going down the wonderful path of 'Intelligent Design':

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1957858,00.html

At least the government are discrediting it.

Scary or a very positive thing? Thoughts?

I'm glad to see some serious science is popping up in the UK. :p

I'm through with the debate. I can't believe that people can believe in evolution (on any level beyond microevolution), but refuse to believe in a God. Or worse yet, try to mix the two. But anyway...

I'm glad to see some serious science is popping up in the UK. :p

I'm through with the debate. I can't believe that people can believe in evolution (on any level beyond microevolution), but refuse to believe in a God. Or worse yet, try to mix the two. But anyway...

So God exists and evolution is bunk? Helpful.:p

So God exists and evolution is bunk? Helpful.:p

Yes, evolution is bunk. :p

I don't understand how people can even think of it as making sense. A chicken becomes a dog after thousand of mutations (most of which we have seen are fatal or cause horrible birth defects) and after many catastrophes (which wipe out all life except for these several species which just happen to be perfectly suited to survive).......

I just don't understand how people accept it.

EDIT: The above is an example of the use of hyperbole: extreme exaggeration to prove a point.

thousand of mutations (most of which we have seen are fatal or cause horrible birth defects)

The key word here is "most". In any case, most mutations are not fatal or deforming. Most mutations have little to no effect at all.

Furthermore, chickens are not the biological precursors to dogs.

Yes, evolution is bunk. :p

I don't understand how people can even think of it as making sense. A chicken becomes a dog after thousand of mutations (most of which we have seen are fatal or cause horrible birth defects) and after many catastrophes (which wipe out all life except for these several species which just happen to be perfectly suited to survive).......

I just don't understand how people accept it.

God I hope Soheran comes on this thread...

(which wipe out all life except for these several species which just happen to be perfectly suited to survive)

Welcome to the wonderful world of Natural Selection. Things which are able to survive, survive. Things which aren't able to survive become extinct. It's harsh, but it makes perfect sense.

Losing it Big Time,,

May I suggest that you read the exchange between H.G Wells (an evolutionist) and Hilaire Belloc (an intelligent man) published in the early XXth century, in which Belloc demolishes the macroevolutionary argument to the point that Wells refused at the end to reply?

This doesn't just frustrate me, it scares me. Not only do we now have these damn 'faith' schools and 'acadamies' popping up all over the show but now we're going (no offense) all American on Intelligent Design:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1957858,00.html

At least the government are discrediting it.

Scary or a very positive thing? Thoughts?
WTF:confused: I think this article aptly illustrates we aren't the only place with idiots on the subject so whats with the bear baiting?

Losing it Big Time,,

May I suggest that you read the exchange between H.G Wells (an evolutionist) and Hilaire Belloc (an intelligent man) published in the early XXth century, in which Belloc demolishes the macroevolutionary argument to the point that Wells refused at the end to reply?

Yep, because the field of evolutionary biology has made absloutly no progress since the turn of the last century:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yes, evolution is bunk. :p

I don't understand how people can even think of it as making sense. A chicken becomes a dog after thousand of mutations (most of which we have seen are fatal or cause horrible birth defects) and after many catastrophes (which wipe out all life except for these several species which just happen to be perfectly suited to survive).......

I just don't understand how people accept it.

Maybe you should get a degree in biology, then you'd understand.

Unless you literally mean you are unable to understand, in which case there is no help.

The key word here is "most". In any case, most mutations are not fatal or deforming. Most mutations have little to no effect at all.

Furthermore, chickens are not the biological precursors to dogs.

It was an exaggeration. But the idea's the same: one species becomes another, new species.

Losing it Big Time,,

May I suggest that you read the exchange between H.G Wells (an evolutionist) and Hilaire Belloc (an intelligent man) published in the early XXth century, in which Belloc demolishes the macroevolutionary argument to the point that Wells refused at the end to reply?

I thought you scummy forum-vandal trolls used "evilution" for this sort of graffiti?

WTF:confused: I think this article aptly illustrates we aren't the only place with idiots on the subject so whats with the bear baiting?

'Twas tongue-in-cheek. No offense was meant and yes I consider the British/English to be just as idiotic as any American: In fact I'll edit it out...

Yes, evolution is bunk. :p

I don't understand how people can even think of it as making sense. A chicken becomes a dog after thousand of mutations (most of which we have seen are fatal or cause horrible birth defects) and after many catastrophes (which wipe out all life except for these several species which just happen to be perfectly suited to survive).......

I just don't understand how people accept it.

Because we actually look at the theory not the straw man you proposed.

Maybe you should get a degree in biology, then you'd understand.

I'd sooner shoot myself. I'm glad some people understand all that, because I have no patience for it. I try to learn enough to get by in general knowledge, and I leave the rest.

Unless you literally mean you are unable to understand, in which case there is no help.

I do not understand how so many people accept the theory when I do not see that it is so believable.

I do not understand how so many people accept the theory when I do not see that it is so believable.

Maybe because they've received a basic education in Biology and you haven't?

Maybe because they've received a basic education in Biology and you haven't?

Oh, I've received basic (emphasis on basic) education in biology. Perhaps that's why I have so many problems with it.

Oh, I've received basic (emphasis on basic) education in biology. Perhaps that's why I have so many problems with it.

Look, I really don't have a problem with you as a person. Not at all. I just wish you'd have a more open-minded approach to the modern world.
Science (of which Biology is a branch) has given us so much. It's not a rigid set of rules, and if creationism really was provable, it would be a valid theory.
Visit your local library, take out some books, and at least give the other side of the argument a look-in.
What's the worst that could happen?

I'm sorry but creationism is not science.

Fact: The earth was made about 4 billion years ago not 10,000 years ago.

Fact: There was ancient life that has now gone extinct but existed millions of years ago such as dinosaurs and early mammals.

Fact: Dinosaurs did not coexist with people despite what some say. The age of rocks where dinosaur fossils have been found is much, much, older than that of early humans.

Fact: It is genetically impossible for an entire race to be born out of two individuals (Adam and Eve.)

There is only two ways that creationism could possibly work. Way number one is if instead of animals evolving, God just simply zaps them to make another animal very simaler to it. (ex. God zaps a Compognathus with feathers to turn it into an Archeoptorix and about 100 million years later He zaps the Archeoptorix to turn it into a primitive species of bird.) If that is the case then why wait so long to do those changes, if God wants the Compsognathus to be a bird then why not make it a bird in the first place.

Also fossils, geology, and every single scientific fact could just be God trying to test the faithful. :rolleyes: If any brave soul wishes to advocate that theroy they can.

I'd sooner shoot myself. I'm glad some people understand all that, because I have no patience for it. I try to learn enough to get by in general knowledge, and I leave the rest.

That's just childish. I am well aquainted with many religious beliefs and organised religions because I want to learn about them, understand them and - in general - have a platform from which to disagree with them. You are removing any platform from which you are allowed to comment on this theory by simply stating that you refuse even to understand it as a basic concept.

I do not understand how so many people accept the theory when I do not see that it is so believable.

And I feel the same way about God/Jehovah/Buddha/Vishnu/Allah but, whilst I disagree with and debate many religious beliefs and can't see the logic in any of them, I will not dismiss them outright by saying - to paraphrase - "I do not understand how so many people accept God when I do not see him/it/her anywhere to prove her/that/whosits existence." You understand this is what I don't say; what I don't say.

Yes, evolution is bunk. :p

I don't understand how people can even think of it as making sense. A chicken becomes a dog after thousand of mutations (most of which we have seen are fatal or cause horrible birth defects) and after many catastrophes (which wipe out all life except for these several species which just happen to be perfectly suited to survive).......

I just don't understand how people accept it.

EDIT: The above is an example of the use of hyperbole: extreme exaggeration to prove a point.

Because, maybe, just maybe, that's not how it works. It is far more complex.

I'd sooner shoot myself. I'm glad some people understand all that, because I have no patience for it. I try to learn enough to get by in general knowledge, and I leave the rest.



I do not understand how so many people accept the theory when I do not see that it is so believable.

Creationism (the mud theory) requires belief in something invisible and unreasonable.

Evolution (biology) requires two beliefs, but they are easy ones.
1) The validity of reason
2) The ability of humans to understand things

Yes, evolution is bunk. :p

I don't understand how people can even think of it as making sense. A chicken becomes a dog after thousand of mutations (most of which we have seen are fatal or cause horrible birth defects) and after many catastrophes (which wipe out all life except for these several species which just happen to be perfectly suited to survive).......

I just don't understand how people accept it.

EDIT: The above is an example of the use of hyperbole: extreme exaggeration to prove a point.

This just goes to show that you have no grasp on the workings of evolution. After you have done significant enough research to realize why your misrepresentation is senseless, please try again.

Until then, it is quite clear why you beleive that beleiving in macroevolution is equal to the leap of faith necessary to beleive in a God. Now, abiogenesis is an issue of it's own, and as an ignostic, it isn't one I have a strong opinion on given the facts at our disposal at the moment.

I suggest taking a few courses in evolutionary biology and coming back.

After all, it does not bode well to enter a battle of wits unarmed.

Look, I really don't have a problem with you as a person. Not at all. I just wish you'd have a more open-minded approach to the modern world.
Science (of which Biology is a branch) has given us so much. It's not a rigid set of rules, and if creationism really was provable, it would be a valid theory.
Visit your local library, take out some books, and at least give the other side of the argument a look-in.
What's the worst that could happen?

Why would you have a problem with me as a person? Is it because I'm a horrible Evangelical? :eek:

I really have no desire to investigate it anymore than I have. No one has provided me with answers to my questions. They all (every single one) just says that I must be uneducated and that I'm biased against it. Of course I'm biased against it. I'm biased against a lot of things that I believe are wrong, all of them actually.

You're fighting an uphill battle with me - you have to convince me that creationism is wrong. Just as I'm fighting an uphill battle with you.

I refuse to accept anything more than microevolution until someone can reconcile it with Biblical Christianity. Also, I see no evidence for mutations being able to cause new species. Those are the biggest stones in the road for me.

Why would you have a problem with me as a person? Is it because I'm a horrible Evangelical? :eek:

I DON'T have a problem with you.

No one has provided me with answers to my questions.

Yes we have. I even suggested that you research it yourself.

You're fighting an uphill battle with me - you have to convince me that creationism is wrong.

No, that's up to you to find out for yourself. Why don't you just search for the evidence on your own?

I refuse to accept anything more than microevolution until someone can reconcile it with Biblical Christianity.
But why? Why should it have to have anything to do with the Bible?

I refuse to accept anything more than microevolution until someone can reconcile it with Biblical Christianity. .


Refusing to believe is a rejection of reason, which is the first prerequisite to understanding evolutionary biology, so there we have it.

And I feel the same way about God/Jehovah/Buddha/Vishnu/Allah but, whilst I disagree with and debate many religious beliefs and can't see the logic in any of them, I will not dismiss them outright by saying - to paraphrase - "I do not understand how so many people accept God when I do not see him/it/her anywhere to prove her/that/whosits existence." You understand this is what I don't say; what I don't say.

You are quite allowed to not say it.

I said it so that I can make it known that it is beyond my ability to comprehend how people can believe this theory. I can understand how people can say there is no God. I can understand how people can say Christianity is stupidity. I think they are wrong, dreadfully wrong. But I cannot (not will not, not do not want to, but cannot) understand how people believe this theory. I understand the basics of it (the very basics) and it simply has no influence on my thinking: I am simply unable to accept it as truth, just as I am simply unable to say there is no God.

That was my point in saying what I said.

Why would you have a problem with me as a person? Is it because I'm a horrible Evangelical? :eek:

I really have no desire to investigate it anymore than I have. No one has provided me with answers to my questions. They all (every single one) just says that I must be uneducated and that I'm biased against it. Of course I'm biased against it. I'm biased against a lot of things that I believe are wrong, all of them actually.


Alright, I am giving you this chance: Ask away! Any question you have, I shall answer to the best of my ability. Any question. I hope they aren't the same uneducated questions spewed out before, though, as I'm getting rather tired of answering those ones over and over again. So, here is your chance to have any question you have answered.

Note-I'm not saying you are uneducated, just that many questions asked are usually uneducated.

I'm glad to see some serious science is popping up in the UK. :p

I'm through with the debate. I can't believe that people can believe in evolution (on any level beyond microevolution), but refuse to believe in a God. Or worse yet, try to mix the two. But anyway...I hate it when people try to use the deckmantle of scientific dialogue to further their bullshit.

I hate it when people try to use the deckmantle of scientific dialogue to further their bullshit.

I heard some slob trash on NPR last year as part of a point-counterpoint they did on science vs. I.D. in schools who said that the proper role of research was "The Science of Design Detection."

You are quite allowed to not say it.

I said it so that I can make it known that it is beyond my ability to comprehend how people can believe this theory. I can understand how people can say there is no God. I can understand how people can say Christianity is stupidity. I think they are wrong, dreadfully wrong. But I cannot (not will not, not do not want to, but cannot) understand how people believe this theory. I understand the basics of it (the very basics) and it simply has no influence on my thinking: I am simply unable to accept it as truth, just as I am simply unable to say there is no God.

That was my point in saying what I said.

It's a fairly easy theory to beleive. All you have to do is accept the obvious:

- The existence of genes and DNA
- That there are limited resources that creatures must compete for
- That the structure of available resources changes over time
And
- That genetic mutations occur

Since each of those claims is prooved in entirety, there remains no reason to claim Evolution has not occured and does not occur except for your willful descision that since it does not fall in line with your faith it cannot possibly be true.

I heard some slob trash on NPR last year as part of a point-counterpoint they did on science vs. I.D. in schools who said that the proper role of research was "The Science of Design Detection."Oh, I had a look at one of Jack Chick's criticisms of evolution that boiled down to Kent Hovind's crap about caves not being millions of years old because stalactites in the Lincoln memorial don't take millions of years to form :rolleyes:

I'd sooner shoot myself. I'm glad some people understand all that, because I have no patience for it. I try to learn enough to get by in general knowledge, and I leave the rest.



I do not understand how so many people accept the theory when I do not see that it is so believable.


Wait? You criticize something you don't understand?

Hmm what do you call that?

Oh, I had a look at one of Jack Chick's criticisms of evolution that boiled down to Kent Hovind's crap about caves not being millions of years old because stalactites in the Lincoln memorial don't take millions of years to form :rolleyes:

Tisk, that's Kent "I'm going to prison because I'm a tax cheat and a liar" Hovind from now on ;)

Tisk, that's Kent "I'm going to prison because I'm a tax cheat and a liar" Hovind from now on ;)

Ahh so he is finally on his way?

Did they finally wack dino land?

Wait? You criticize something you don't understand?

Hmm what do you call that?

Wilfull ignorance.

For a potent disproof of Christianity, find and watch 'The Disputation', a film adaptation of one of the most famous Jew v. Christian debates of all time - Father Pablo Christian v. Rabbi Moses ben Nachman. Christopher Lee plays King Charles, who seems to be more interested in seeing a good, fair debate than in Christianity winning.

I hold that G-d created the universe in an event known as the Big Bang, and that He wrote the laws of science, including biology and evolution. He then rigged the system to produce intelligent life.

I'm glad to see some serious science is popping up in the UK. :p

I'm through with the debate. I can't believe that people can believe in evolution (on any level beyond microevolution), but refuse to believe in a God. Or worse yet, try to mix the two. But anyway...

A few quotes for you

... just because Intelligent Design theorists cannot think of how nature could have created something through evolution, that does not mean that scientists will not be able to do so either. Intelligent Design is a remarkably uncreative theory that abandons the search for understanding at the very point where it is most needed. If Intelligent Design is really a science, then the burden is on its "scientists" to discover the mechanisms used by the Intelligent Designer. And if those mechanisms turn out to be natural forces, then no supernatural force is necessary, and they can simply change their name to evolutionary scientists and get to work.
-Michael Shermer

Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory it supported by no facts at all.
-Herbert Spencer

And no there is no proof that any religious text are fact
-Freedontya

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens have ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
- Robert Heinlein, "The Notebook of Lazarus Long"

I do not understand how so many people accept the theory when I do not see that it is so believable.

I find it odd that you can believe micro evolution.. but not macro evolution. Does that mean you could believe in erosion from water from your garden hose but not believe that the grand canyon was carved by a river?

There are actually some pretty good examples of "macro evolution". Most of them are not examples you would find in the zoo but they do exist. There are species of Raven that can breed with their neighbours to the immediate South who can breed with their neighbours a little further south. There is no point at which this chain is broken ... and yet if you take a Raven from the north and a raven from the south they can not breed. Micro evolution at every step... but resulting in marco evolution. There are several species of fish that follow the same pattern. And I am sure there would be some excellent examples in the insect world with asocial and social bees etc.. but I am no entomologist so couldn't really give a good example.

If you want an example that is closer to home (all be it not a very good one) try Horses and Donkeys.. separate species that can breed and produce offspring. Sure the offspring (mules) are sterile .. but its close.

The evidence for micro evolution in indisputable.. its been witnessed in literally thousands of different situations... macro evolution has really only been witnessed first hand with bacteria.. given the timescales of evolution it may be a very long time before we have better examples... but there are plenty of very convincing cases.

Yes, evolution is bunk. :p

I don't understand how people can even think of it as making sense. A chicken becomes a dog after thousand of mutations (most of which we have seen are fatal or cause horrible birth defects) and after many catastrophes (which wipe out all life except for these several species which just happen to be perfectly suited to survive).......

I just don't understand how people accept it.


It would indeed be awfully strange if a chicken evolved into a dog. ;)

As has already been said, your statement that most mutations are fatal is very, very false. The overwhelming majority of mutations have neither positive nor negative effect. A small minority do have some practical effect, whether for good or ill. Think of it this way - if you were to put on a blindfold and take teensy-weensy steps forward, the vast majority of the time, nothing particularly impressive would happen at the end of each step. However, given infinite teensy-weensy steps, some small portion of them will be teensy-weensy steps off a cliff. Some small portion of them will, likewise, be teensy-weensy steps into better situations as well. Mutations are a little like that. Most of them are entirely irrelevant, but given the infinity of possibilities, some few are also great or horrible.

I really have no desire to investigate it anymore than I have. No one has provided me with answers to my questions. They all (every single one) just says that I must be uneducated and that I'm biased against it. Of course I'm biased against it. I'm biased against a lot of things that I believe are wrong, all of them actually.

I will happily answer any question you have to the best of my ability, whether on this thread or via TGs. I mean that. I will not condescend or tell you you're just biased. Ask away.

I refuse to accept anything more than microevolution until someone can reconcile it with Biblical Christianity. Also, I see no evidence for mutations being able to cause new species. Those are the biggest stones in the road for me.

Quite a lot of people have reconciled evolution with Christianity. What exactly do you see as the problems needing to be reconciled?

For your other issue, "mutations cause speciation" is so much of an oversimplification that I assume you simply meant that you don't understand how speciation occurs. If you genuinely see no evidence for speciation...well, no offense intended, but have you looked? There's a great deal of such evidence out there, and while I'm happy to provide specific examples if necessary, the sheer volume of the evidence in question is rather hard to miss.

I'd sooner shoot myself. I'm glad some people understand all that, because I have no patience for it. I try to learn enough to get by in general knowledge, and I leave the rest.



I do not understand how so many people accept the theory when I do not see that it is so believable.
I expect the latter is a function of the former. It's generally a lot harder to make useful judgements about the believability of things you refuse to learn anything about. It's a simple fact that the more you know about something the more likely you are to be right about it. I've noticed that most people who find evolutionary theory absurd know about as much about as you....methinks I see a pattern here.

Macroevolution is more than multiples of microevolution, by the standards of modern science, not evolutionists propagandists.

If we could track a single lineage through time, say from a single-cell protist to Homo sapiens, then we would see a long series of mutations and fixations as each ancestral population evolved. It might look as though the entire history could be accounted for by microevolutionary processes. This is an illusion because the track of the single lineage ignores all of the branching and all of the other species that lived and died along the way. That track would not explain why Neanderthals became extinct and Cro-Magnon survived. It would not explain why modern humans arose in Africa. It would not tell us why placental mammals became more successful than the dinosaurs. It would not explain why humans don't have wings and can't breathe underwater. It doesn't tell us whether replaying the tape of life will automatically lead to humans. All of those things are part of the domain of macroevolution and microevolution isn't sufficient to help us understand them.
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html

Yes, evolution is bunk. :p

I don't understand how people can even think of it as making sense. A chicken becomes a dog after thousand of mutations (most of which we have seen are fatal or cause horrible birth defects) and after many catastrophes (which wipe out all life except for these several species which just happen to be perfectly suited to survive).......

I just don't understand how people accept it.

EDIT: The above is an example of the use of hyperbole: extreme exaggeration to prove a point.

Also known as the Straw man fallacy...

oh no, the evil christians have a faith!

oh no, the evil christians have a faith!

Speaking of straw men... :rolleyes:

I swear these people are just on the lookout for everything that's bad they can import from other countries. Oooh America's got a problem with schools teaching cod science and causing pupils to leave school with no grasp of science, why don't we try that here?

I thank God that the British are beginning to move in the right direction. Now they just need to reject that "Evolution" trash, and the vague intelligent design, and embrace Creationism as told to us in God's word. The Atheist faith of "Evolution" must be discarded.

I thank God that the British are beginning to move in the right direction. Now they just need to reject that "Evolution" trash, and the vague intelligent design, and embrace Creationism as told to us in God's word. The Atheist faith of "Evolution" must be discarded.

Shoo.

Naughty troll. Get out of my thread.

Don't make me release this badger again....

You're fighting an uphill battle with me - you have to convince me that creationism is wrong. Just as I'm fighting an uphill battle with you.

I refuse to accept anything more than microevolution until someone can reconcile it with Biblical Christianity. Also, I see no evidence for mutations being able to cause new species. Those are the biggest stones in the road for me.

How can anyone convince you that evolution is correct when you refuse to even listen? If you truly want to learn about evolution, then you need to open yourself to the possibility that evolution is correct and creationism is not.

How can anyone convince you that evolution is correct when you refuse to even listen? If you truly want to learn about evolution, then you need to open yourself to the possibility that evolution is correct and creationism is not.

and vice versa.

I thank God that the British are beginning to move in the right direction. Now they just need to reject that "Evolution" trash, and the vague intelligent design, and embrace Creationism as told to us in God's word. The Atheist faith of "Evolution" must be discarded.

atheism isnt a faith, its a lack of it.

the prefix "a", meaning not or without
the suffix "theism", meaning god or faith

therefore, atheism most basically means without god or without faith.

you cannot tell me that there is no part of evolution that intrigues you in the slightest.

atheism isnt a faith, its a lack of it.

the prefix "a", meaning not or without
the suffix "theism", meaning god or faith

therefore, atheism most basically means without god or without faith.

you cannot tell me that there is no part of evolution that intrigues you in the slightest.

I dunno. I'd class atheism as faith based: as it is the disbelief in God it becomes a religious PoV. I'm an atheist and I tell people that when they question my religious/moral values: don't see why we can't classify a denial of the existence of God as a part of our belief structure. This would be, literally, "I have faith in the fact that God does not exist."

Don't bother to try and interest those who take the Bible as the be all and end all in Evolution. I have no problem with those who understand Evolution from a Bibilical/Religious standpoint but I have no time for people like Senor Redemption who simply dismiss anything that they don't understand.

I dunno. I'd class atheism as faith based: as it is the disbelief in God it becomes a religious PoV.
Then you'd be wrong. Religion is an organised form of worship, most atheists are not organised together for the purpose of worship, quite what you think they would be worshiping is beyond me.
If someone has never heard of any god, or any religion, they are an atheist, they have an absence of belief, how is that religious?
Believing in deity X is not a default from which all other positions are judged. That one has not acquired a religion or a belief in some deity or group of deities does not automatically mean they have some kind of theist faith or POV.

I'm an atheist and I tell people that when they question my religious/moral values: don't see why we can't classify a denial of the existence of God as a part of our belief structure. This would be, literally, "I have faith in the fact that God does not exist."
I have faith that the earth goes around the sun rather than the other way around, that's not religious. Plenty of people neither believe there is a god nor that there is not, such people are atheists. You might have strong beliefs that there is not a god, but that isnt religious, the point of a religion is that it is a form of worship, or other practise of spiritual beliefs, not an absence of all the above.

Theism if the belief in spritual/supernatural deities, an absence of such beliefs (whether a belief they do not exist, or no belief either way) is atheism. Atheism does not require disbelief, and is not a religion or religious unless it involves practises that qualify it as such. In most cases it doesnt.

Yes, evolution is bunk. :p

I don't understand how people can even think of it as making sense. A chicken becomes a dog after thousand of mutations (most of which we have seen are fatal or cause horrible birth defects) and after many catastrophes (which wipe out all life except for these several species which just happen to be perfectly suited to survive).......

I just don't understand how people accept it.

EDIT: The above is an example of the use of hyperbole: extreme exaggeration to prove a point.

No chicken will ever become a dog. But if you go back far enough, you'll find an animal that was the ancestor of both chickens and dogs today.

And yes, species that survive catastrophies are species that are able to survive catastrophes. All other species died out. If we had a nuclear holocaust tomorrow, would you honestly be speechless that humans don't survive but cockroaches do?

Just because you don't understand the theory of evolution and obviously can't be arsed to read up on it before dismissing it doesn't mean it's bunk.

I dunno. I'd class atheism as faith based: as it is the disbelief in God it becomes a religious PoV. I'm an atheist and I tell people that when they question my religious/moral values: don't see why we can't classify a denial of the existence of God as a part of our belief structure. This would be, literally, "I have faith in the fact that God does not exist."

Don't bother to try and interest those who take the Bible as the be all and end all in Evolution. I have no problem with those who understand Evolution from a Bibilical/Religious standpoint but I have no time for people like Senor Redemption who simply dismiss anything that they don't understand.

That'd be mostly my understanding of the word, too.
Somebody who just doesn't care if there is a god would be an atheistic or theistic agnostic. To call yourself atheist, you have to belief that there is no god. Which strictly speaking is a belief, althought not necessarily a religion.

and vice versa.

Science is always open to criticism. But to form a scientific thoery, the least you need is evidence that supports it. Creationism seems mostly occupied with yelling at the theory of evolution, without presenting evidence that would effectively contradict it.

If we had a nuclear holocaust tomorrow, would you honestly be speechless that humans don't survive but cockroaches do?
I expect we all would be (speechless).:p

Sorry couldnt resist...

Here is the real answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7I73DNguRI

/sarcasam

Science is always open to criticism. But to form a scientific thoery, the least you need is evidence that supports it. Creationism seems mostly occupied with yelling at the theory of evolution, without presenting evidence that would effectively contradict it.

People who believe in Creationism/Intelligent design are most often to yell in the face of evolution, i agree.

I, however, do not believe that there is no evidence to support it.

People who believe in Creationism/Intelligent design are most often to yell in the face of evolution, i agree.

I, however, do not believe that there is no evidence to support it.

Well, there's the thing about belief. You know, it not being a very scientific method and all. Do you have evidence? If so, please present it.

People who believe in Creationism/Intelligent design are most often to yell in the face of evolution, i agree.

I, however, do not believe that there is no evidence to support it.
I, however, do not believe that there is no evidence to support the premise that you killed my mother. :eek:

That still doesnt make it remotely likely that you did, especially given the over-whelming evidence to the contrary.....like the fact that my mother is alive.

and vice versa.

I'm quite willing to believe in God - if I'm given proof of Gods existence.

Are you willing to believe in evolution, given that there is actually evidence to support the theory of evolution as opposed to no evidence supporting the existence of God?

I don't understand how people can even think of it as making sense.Because it's a proven design paradigm in computer science, among other areas.

Fact: The earth was made about 4 billion years ago not 10,000 years ago. "Made"? :p

I'm glad to see some serious science is popping up in the UK. :p

I'm through with the debate. I can't believe that people can believe in evolution (on any level beyond microevolution), but refuse to believe in a God. Or worse yet, try to mix the two. But anyway...

Totally agree. However many times humans jump off buildings, they aint gonna evolve wings!

"Made"? :p

bit of water, some glue, and some paint.

oh and some sand.

?

Totally agree. However many times humans jump off buildings, they aint gonna evolve wings!
This is perhaps the most ludicrous impression of what evolution is that I've ever seen...

Totally agree. However many times humans jump off buildings, they aint gonna evolve wings!A lot of people made wings to jump off cliffs though, and only the ones with somewhat working wings survived. And behold, today we have flight.
But you're looking at it all wrong anyway, that'd lamarckian adaption, not evolution.

Totally agree. However many times humans jump off buildings, they aint gonna evolve wings!

Of course you might evolve people that don't throw themselves off of buildings hoping to spontaneously sprout hoverjets, if only because those that do so are thankfully removing their presence from the gene pool.

This doesn't just frustrate me, it scares me. Not only do we now have these damn 'faith' schools and 'acadamies' popping up all over the show but now we're going down the wonderful path of 'Intelligent Design':

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1957858,00.html

At least the government are discrediting it.

Scary or a very positive thing? Thoughts?
Well, this is under the Education Secretary who refuses to deny she thinks homosexuality is a sin (while minister for equality), so I doubt much will come off it.

Funny thing is, with our manufacturing industry on the decline, the governments wants a "knowledge based economy". Which is why school funding is being cut (with some relying on donations of tissues and toilet paper) and LSAs being used as teachers on the cheap, schools being sold off to businessmen and clerics, and now this.

Some knowledge based economy...

Totally agree. However many times humans jump off buildings, they aint gonna evolve wings!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being sarcastic ;)

Its reverse psychology. *nod

Edited: This post is in relation to New Burmesia's post. Bloody hell you bastages are fast.

Totally agree. However many times humans jump off buildings, they aint gonna evolve wings!

Ironically Creationism would support the possibility of humans growing wings by jumping off buildings as God could easily grant a human wings if God choose.

criticism is always good, but this? ah well let them believe what they want to believe, atleast the gov. aren't supporting it. if people want to be deluded or believe different than the status quo, let them, strange ideas if quite appealing IMO.

I suppose we were lulling ourselves into a false sense of security. As someone said, there are (proportionally) just as many loons^H^H^H^H^H possibly misguided people in the Uk as in the US, so it was just a matter of time before we got the teach-it-in-school creationists and the militant right-to-lifers.

BTW evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact, that at present is explained by the Theory of Natural Selection.

Actually, evolution IS a theory. It is a very good scientific theory supported by the evidence, the volume of which is added to with each passing day.

*crosses UK off list of places to live*

:eek:

At least the government are discrediting it.



At the moment, yes, but Maria Van der Hoeven types may lurk anywhere :

www.rationalistinternational.net/article/2005/20050622_en_4.html

I suppose we were lulling ourselves into a false sense of security. As someone said, there are (proportionally) just as many loons^H^H^H^H^H possibly misguided people in the Uk as in the US, so it was just a matter of time before we got the teach-it-in-school creationists and the militant right-to-lifers.

BTW evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact, that at present is explained by the Theory of Natural Selection.

Personally, I'd have no problem with ID being taught in schools, but only in Religious Education classes, as it is a faith-based approach, not scientific.
The last place for it is in science classes.

I do not understand how so many people accept the theory when I do not see that it is so believable.

Perhaps they are just cleverer than you are, or less accepting of silly religious bunk than you.

God used his magic to cause a mist to appear and wet the dust. This created mud. (gen 2:6).

God sculpted dirt statues from the mud, and used his magic to make the mud statues come to life, thus creating man by sculpting mud. (gen 2:7).

Behold, the Mud Theory

It's scary that people are having another point of view?

It's scary that people are having another point of view?

I think it scares the OP that the other 'point of view' people have consists of rejecting facts in favor of fantasies.

Religion is a dangerous monkey when let run amok in society, as is made evident in the US and in the middle east.

I think it scares the OP that the other 'point of view' people have consists of rejecting facts in favor of fantasies.


In your opinion. Assuming that ID means religion, which it doesn't, that is only dangerouse if it is mixed in with government. So in affect, there is nothing to be worried about.

I live in England, and in primary school we were taught about genesis and adam and eve etc as fact. But no one ever took it literally, even at age 7 or whatever it just seemed silly. once in secondary school it was never mentioned again. we had evolutionary theory etc in biology classes, and just an overview of world religions in RE. Sikhism was my favourite.

All religious studies lessons were taught, not to indoctrinate anyone, but to give us a better understanding of other cultures and how religions develop in different parts of the world.

Its only looking back I realise what a good school it was. They should just leave things the way they were.

It's scary that people are having another point of view?Some people have a different point of view on the issue of treating people of a different skin color the same. That scares me.

In your opinion. Assuming that ID means religion, which it doesn't, that is only dangerouse if it is mixed in with government. So in affect, there is nothing to be worried about.

ID does mean religion. It calls into play a completely unrecognized/untested/undocumented "creator". ID's roots are also completely in the creationist movement in the US as part of a "wedge" to reinsert Biblical creationism into the science classroom.

In your opinion. Assuming that ID means religion, which it doesn't, that is only dangerouse if it is mixed in with government. So in affect, there is nothing to be worried about.The manuscript of that panda book showed pretty clearly that ID and creationism are one and the same to religious people.

In your opinion. Assuming that ID means religion, which it doesn't, that is only dangerouse if it is mixed in with government. So in affect, there is nothing to be worried about.

ID is explicitly religious because it posits an intelligent designer, who is god.

ID does mean religion. It calls into play a completely unrecognized/untested/undocumented "creator".

How is belief in a designer a religion?


ID's roots are also completely in the creationist movement in the US as part of a "wedge" to reinsert Biblical creationism into the science classroom.

Not true, it was made massively popular among creationists who then used it. However ID has been around for centuries.

It's scary that people are having another point of view?

It isn't scary that people have a different point of view. It is scary that they are lying to children by claiming that their point of view is science, when it is generally religious, or is at least a philosophical viewpoint seperate from the scientific method, and thus from science.

Not true, it was made massively popular among creationists who then used it. However ID has been around for centuries.Back that up please.

How is belief in a designer a religion?

Find the designer please.


Not true, it was made massively popular among creationists who then used it. However ID has been around for centuries.

So the modern ID movement that is being pushed is the same thing? At least you admit the ID movement is being pushed by Creationists.

What is the disprovable hypothesis in ID? What tests have been done to support it's conclusions? What are the standards set for what is considered "designed"?

Back that up please.

Ever heard of Palies (sp?) watch?

Not true, it was made massively popular among creationists who then used it. However ID has been around for centuries.

We aren't talking about ID as in, "I believe there is a creator/designer." We are talking about the relatively new from of ID which masquerades as science, despite having no basis in the scientific method.

Find the designer please.


Lets just assume it is God. How does belief in god make you relgious?


So the modern ID movement that is being pushed is the same thing? At least you admit the ID movement is being pushed by Creationists.


Not really, the basic principles are there but they take it too far.


What is the disprovable hypothesis in ID? What tests have been done to support it's conclusions? What are the standards set for what is considered "designed"?

I'm not arguing ID as a science. ID is not science I will admit that.

Lets just assume it is God. How does belief in god make you relgious?

Um, read your own statement please.



Not really, the basic principles are there but they take it too far.


What is the disprovable hypothesis in ID? What tests have been done to support it's conclusions? What are the standards set for what is considered "designed"?[/QUOTE]

I'm not arguing ID as a science. ID is not science I will admit that.[/QUOTE]

But the whole point is that it's being pushed in science classes as an "alternative theory". It is not. I don't care if they teach it in religion or philosophy classes but not in science.

Ever heard of Palies (sp?) watch?No. Please enlighten me.

Um, read your own statement please.


I'm pretty sure religion is more then just a belief in God.


But the whole point is that it's being pushed in science classes as an "alternative theory". It is not. I don't care if they teach it in religion or philosophy classes but not in science.

Fair enough.

I'm pretty sure religion is more then just a belief in God.

But it is a religious belief. "I believe in the Judeo-Christian God" is a proffession of a general religion.



Fair enough.

If only the real world debate were so simple. :)

I'm pretty sure religion is more then just a belief in God.


You're completely mistaken and wrong then.

You're completely mistaken and wrong then.

Ok I will look up Religious


1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday.
2. imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man.
3. scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care.
4. pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.
5. appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances.
–noun 6. a member of a religious order, congregation, etc.; a monk, friar, or nun.
7. the religious, devout or religious persons: Each year, thousands of the religious make pilgrimages to the shrine.


I don't think so.

No. Please enlighten me.

if I'm correct it's a thought experiment about complexity not springing naturally.

The idea is that if you found a watch on the street, you would not assume that the watch was created naturally. Rather the watch, being a complex mechanism, could not have simply been created naturally and must have a creator.

It draws a parallel to existance by saying "if a watch is complex enough to need a creator and could not have been created naturally, then the world/universe is likewise sufficiently complex to require a creator"

It generates two fallacies however in that:

a) it does not define "complex" in the terms of existance, and it ignores entropy principles which suggests that the universe is hardly ordered and well running, but rather is pretty chaotic and not...well...clockwork

b) the old problem "if complexity requires creation, who created the complex creator?"

No. Please enlighten me.
It's a flawed argument to attempt to prove creationism.

Fact: The earth was made about 4 billion years ago not 10,000 years ago.


You know this how? Its only a theory. A likely theory, but we cant be 100% sure. Facts have to be 100% proven


Fact: It is genetically impossible for an entire race to be born out of two individuals (Adam and Eve.)



How do you know Adam and Eve wern't 8ft tall, with 16 arms and 5 heads? We could be mutants for all you know.

And no, im not a religious fundie, before you ask. :p I believe in God (or whatever it/he/she is), but that he started the rolling train we call evolution

No. Please enlighten me.

Erm. Well a few centuries ago a popular theorie was that if you found a pocket watch in the forest, and you saw the cogs spinning and the ticker ticking etc... you would see that it is very complex, and assume that such a thing would be impossible to naturally emerge from nature.

You then apply the same principles to life, and see that it is 1000 times more complex then the watch etc..

if I'm correct it's a thought experiment about complexity not springing naturally.

The idea is that if you found a watch on the street, you would not assume that the watch was created naturally. Rather the watch, being a complex mechanism, could not have simply been created naturally and must have a creator.

It draws a parallel to existance by saying "if a watch is complex enough to need a creator and could not have been created naturally, then the world/universe is likewise sufficiently complex to require a creator"

It generates two fallacies however in that:

a) it does not define "complex" in the terms of existance, and it ignores entropy principles which suggests that the universe is hardly ordered and well running, but rather is pretty chaotic and not...well...clockwork

b) the old problem "if complexity requires creation, who created the complex creator?"

Again you are looking at this in a cold scientific way, which it does not intend to be.

Erm. Well a few centuries ago a popular theorie was that if you found a pocket watch in the forest, and you saw the cogs spinning and the ticker ticking etc... you would see that it is very complex, and assume that such a thing would be impossible to naturally emerge from nature.

You then apply the same principles to life, and see that it is 1000 times more complex then the watch etc..

the problem with that is one question:

is it possible for an entity to make something MORE complex than he is? The watch may be complex, but the biological entity that created it is certainly more complex.

So if an entity can not make something more complex than he is, then the creator of life must be even MORE complex than life.

So the creator is ENORMOUSLY complex.

So who created him?

Erm. Well a few centuries ago a popular theorie was that if you found a pocket watch in the forest, and you saw the cogs spinning and the ticker ticking etc... you would see that it is very complex, and assume that such a thing would be impossible to naturally emerge from nature.

You then apply the same principles to life, and see that it is 1000 times more complex then the watch etc..And then find a computer chip in the dessert, vastly more complex than a mere watch, and it turns out to be designed by a genetic algorithm..

Again you are looking at this in a cold scientific way, which it does not intend to be.

You mean an honest, reasonable way?

Again you are looking at this in a cold scientific way, which it does not intend to be.
If it can't be judged in a scientific way, it isn't science, and should not be taught in a science lesson, much less regarded as fact.

Again you are looking at this in a cold scientific way, which it does not intend to be.

that's exactly the way it's intended to be. The watch example is an attempt to "prove" creation. When you try to PROVE something it must hold up to logical scrutinty.

A proof is designed to be looked at in a logical way. If it doesn't, and doesn't hold up to such logical scrutinty, it's not a proof, it's not even a particularly apt analogy.

And if it doesn't hold up to logical scrutinty, then what good is it? Why even bring it up to indicate your point if it doesn't actually demonstrate anything?

If it can't be judged in a scientific way, it isn't science, and should not be taught in a science lesson, much less regarded as fact.

I agree. I was never arguing it as a scientific theory.

Erm. Well a few centuries ago a popular theorie was that if you found a pocket watch in the forest, and you saw the cogs spinning and the ticker ticking etc... you would see that it is very complex, and assume that such a thing would be impossible to naturally emerge from nature.

You then apply the same principles to life, and see that it is 1000 times more complex then the watch etc..From when exactly was it?

that's exactly the way it's intended to be. The watch example is an attempt to "prove" creation. When you try to PROVE something it must hold up to logical scrutinty.

A proof is designed to be looked at in a logical way. If it doesn't, and doesn't hold up to such logical scrutinty, it's not a proof, it's not even a particularly apt analogy.

And if it doesn't hold up to logical scrutinty, then what good is it? Why even bring it up to indicate your point if it doesn't actually demonstrate anything?

In reality, there is really no such thing as scientific proof at all. The only true proof is mathematical proof. That doesn't mean that things cant have credibility attatched to them.

I agree. I was never arguing it as a scientific theory.
Well, this is a thread about teaching ID in science, so I was going along with the idea you were supporting it teaching it in science. :eek:

In reality, there is really no such thing as scientific proof at all. The only true proof is mathematical proof. That doesn't mean that things cant have credibility attatched to them.

true, but while most science is not provable it is certainly DISPROVABLE. And a scientific theory retains credibility when it has survived all attempts to disprove it. If it can't be disproven after all reasonable attempts to do so, it's credible.

This hasn't. So it doesn't even have credibility.

From when exactly was it?

Can't remember, I think it was just after the invented pocket clocks.

Well, this is a thread about teaching ID in science, so I was going along with the idea you were supporting it teaching it in science. :eek:

Well, although it's not something I would do I don't mind if they do the following:

Whenever a major scientific theory is pescribed to students which may dictate their views on life, there should be a duty to teach criticisms of the argument be it purely scientific or not. Edit: though not as a major part of the course, a small part of it.

Well, although it's not something I would do I don't mind if they do the following:

Whenever a major scientific theory is pescribed to students which may dictate their views on life, there should be a duty to teach criticisms of the argument be it purely scientific or not.

Fine by me, but if they're putting non scientific criticisms of a scientific theory forwards, it shouldn't be in a science class. General Studies or whatever the hell it is these days.

Well, although it's not something I would do I don't mind if they do the following:

Whenever a major scientific theory is pescribed to students which may dictate their views on life, there should be a duty to teach criticisms of the argument be it purely scientific or not.

if a critique of a scientific theory is not scientific in nature it has no place in a class of science, period. ONLY science should be taught in a science class.

ONLY science.

Let them keep the philosophical and/or religious arguments in their respective classes.

Well, although it's not something I would do I don't mind if they do the following:

Whenever a major scientific theory is pescribed to students which may dictate their views on life, there should be a duty to teach criticisms of the argument be it purely scientific or not.
But if it's a religious criticism, like ID is, it should be left to RE not science.

Do you know what I think? Don't teach evolution or ID at all, then all problems will be solved.

Do you know what I think? Don't teach evolution or ID at all, then all problems will be solved.But what if they want to study biology when they grow up?

But what if they want to study biology when they grow up?

You can get taught evolution at university and A-Level. However the stuff they teach at GCSE is stuff you will learn anyway.

Do you know what I think? Don't teach evolution or ID at all, then all problems will be solved.

at which point you have done a phenominal failure to your main purpose, to education.

Biology is an aspect of science, and evolution is the principle theory of biological studies. You can't fully teach it without teaching evolution.

Failing to teach it fails to educate.

ID...ehh, it's an interesting philosophy but it's hard to find someone who isn't taught on a regular basis "some people think god made everything", which is basically what ID is, and any good World History of Social Studies class would already address that when discussing world religions anyway. ID is pretty much taught in schools as it is, as most states do contain some basic religious comparison and discussion in history class.

You can get taught evolution at university and A-Level. However the stuff they teach at GCSE is stuff you will learn anyway.

Even though the basics of Biology include evolutionary theory?

You can get taught evolution at university and A-Level. However the stuff they teach at GCSE is stuff you will learn anyway.You can get taught evolution in school and not waste your time on it in university. Much of the stuff I've learned at Uni I've heard before, only now I'm taking it in depth and having heard it before makes it easier to understand.

if I'm correct it's a thought experiment about complexity not springing naturally.

The idea is that if you found a watch on the street, you would not assume that the watch was created naturally. Rather the watch, being a complex mechanism, could not have simply been created naturally and must have a creator.

It draws a parallel to existance by saying "if a watch is complex enough to need a creator and could not have been created naturally, then the world/universe is likewise sufficiently complex to require a creator"

It generates two fallacies however in that:

a) it does not define "complex" in the terms of existance, and it ignores entropy principles which suggests that the universe is hardly ordered and well running, but rather is pretty chaotic and not...well...clockwork

b) the old problem "if complexity requires creation, who created the complex creator?"

Not to mention the fact that chaos can result in complexity and order.

Do you know what I think? Don't teach evolution or ID at all, then all problems will be solved.

What problems will be solved? Vandal imbeciles will have wrecked the educational system because facts dont line up with their religion.

Religion has no standing to be taught in science class, the only 'problem' is the whining of religious maniacs, and that isnt so much a problem as an annoyance.

How the people can believe in legends of a book of 2000 years. The creationism isn't anything that the tales written by the human thousands years ago to explain something that they didn't understand, and that everyday is being dimonstrated wrong, and all the new hints are reforcing the evolution theory.

And the difference between the creationism and the evolution and one theory is based on legends, in a fantastic world, like the world of the Lord of Rings, and the other is a scientific theory that explains a facts, the evidences, and explains how works this evidences and facts, in difference to the creationism that doesn't give any evidence.

And to end because has to be right the creationism of the christianism, and not that some giants created the world, based on the nordic legends, that at least, are more interesting and entertaining that the bible novel.

Or why not consider as truth the islamic or hinduist creationism. If in the school is teached one creationism, should be teached all the creationism.

And the theory of the intelligent design isn't more that the madness of some christian fanatics that want to teach religion in science classes that it is imperdonable.

Conclusion: If has to be teached intelligent design, that is been teached in religion classes and the scientific theories to the science classes, as evolution theory.

Or also do you believe that the gravitation is wrong, or that the earth is around the sun is an invention of atheist fanatics.

And if sometime the creationism as intelligent design is teached in science class, also I want that be teached the greek myths, nordic myths, islamic myths and hinduist myths at least of the creation of the world and the universe.

And also the world was created 6000 years ago, and the dinosaurs and the humans lived together, no?

Well, although it's not something I would do I don't mind if they do the following:

Whenever a major scientific theory is pescribed to students which may dictate their views on life, there should be a duty to teach criticisms of the argument be it purely scientific or not. Edit: though not as a major part of the course, a small part of it.

What "views on life" does evolutionary theory dictate? All it does is put forth a (very credible) possible mechanism for the development of the various species we see around us and how they might change. That is all.

Now, there are people who have taken that theory and done all sorts of things with it from a philosophical perspective - sometimes coming to completely opposite viewpoints. However, that philosophical jump is not dictated by the theory.

In your opinion. Assuming that ID means religion, which it doesn't, that is only dangerouse if it is mixed in with government. So in affect, there is nothing to be worried about.

Actually it is about Religion. If you read any of Dembski's books, he talks about God a great deal.

How many orthodox people are going to say the designer is a martian?

ID was created to slip under the radar of the Constitution......

Erm. Well a few centuries ago a popular theorie was that if you found a pocket watch in the forest, and you saw the cogs spinning and the ticker ticking etc... you would see that it is very complex, and assume that such a thing would be impossible to naturally emerge from nature.

You then apply the same principles to life, and see that it is 1000 times more complex then the watch etc..

Ok give me a test to prove or disprove the involvement of a "designer"

I used to make great efforts to be understanding and respectful of other peoples' opinions and beliefs. Sadly, I've come to realise that some beliefs just don't deserve respect. Idiot faschist types are an obvious example.

If someone is able to delude themself that creationism is more credible than evolution, that's up to them. They're a fool, but probably a harmless fool, so I'm happy to leave them to it.

However, when they start trying to teach their ideas to children in science class, that's another matter. The Bible is not a biology textbook, and creationism has no scientific basis. Might as well say you don't believe in gravity, just because it isn't mentioned in the Bible.

A few hundred years ago, Christians were going around denying that the earth orbited the sun, and using the Bible to support their claims. Since then, they've quietly dropped that one. Hopefully, in a few generations, this laughable anti-evolution nonsense will be forgotten as well.

Do you know what I think? Don't teach evolution or ID at all, then all problems will be solved.

Better yet, burn all books!

Knowledge is a very bad thing!

Do you know what I think? Don't teach evolution or ID at all, then all problems will be solved.

That is such a ridiculous attitude. An alternative to the currently-held scientific view comes up, so we stop teaching it? Americans spell things differently,so do I get to demand that we stop teaching spelling in school, because we'll never know which one is right anyway?

Ok give me a test to prove or disprove the involvement of a "designer"

Actually, the very fact that such test cannot be made makes the idea of a designer false by the standards of modern science. Science is evaluated by it's falsifiability. A theory of gravity is held true because the one that invented it gave a very firm set of rules that objects must follow for the theory to be true, if these rules are broken in any situation the theory is false, if they are repeatedly tested in different situations and never found false they must be true.
a = m (aristotle) -> found false by dropping 2 different mass objects at the same time ->
a = g (galileo) -> false in high friction ->
F = ma, F = gm, if friction is small a = g (newton) -> false far from earth ->
g = grav_cstnt*m1m2/R^2 (newton) -> false near massive or fast-moving objects ->
general relativity (einstein) -> false for very small objects -> ?

The thing is, a theory of gravity can be proven false because it defines something strict that actually can be tested. Then it proven false until we get one that is true. You are not defining anything with your "theory" of the creator, thus it's not a theory, not even a hypothesis. It holds just as much credit as my claim that there is a non-corporeal invisible pink unicorn flying behind your back.

Yes, evolution is bunk. :p

I don't understand how people can even think of it as making sense. A chicken becomes a dog after thousand of mutations (most of which we have seen are fatal or cause horrible birth defects) and after many catastrophes (which wipe out all life except for these several species which just happen to be perfectly suited to survive).......

I just don't understand how people accept it.

EDIT: The above is an example of the use of hyperbole: extreme exaggeration to prove a point.

I'm pretty sure they're the same people who think believing an invisible being made everything is just as ridiculous.

I happen to believe in both, guess I'm screwed, eh?

Fried Tuna;12004643']Actually, the very fact that such test cannot be made makes the idea of a designer false by the standards of modern science.

This statement is incorrect. If an idea cannot be tested scientifically, that does not mean it is false, and anyone who assumes that it is is not acting as a scientist. What it does mean is that the idea is not scientific. It cannot serve as the basis for any scientific theories. It cannot be used as a scientific assumption.

It might be absolutely true, and anyone claiming to be a scientist should be able to admit that. However, anything which cannot be tested and possibly disproven by the scientific method is outside the bounds of science, and thus must be seen as irrelevant to it.

I thought you scummy forum-vandal trolls used "evilution" for this sort of graffiti?

As an university educated and reasonably civil individual, I do not mis-spell words to make a point. In fact, I consider the misuse of language in this way to be an example of how low our society has fallen.

I'm sorry but creationism is not science.

Fact: It is genetically impossible for an entire race to be born out of two individuals (Adam and Eve.)



Of course, science has proven that all humans now alive are decended from one woman, called "Eve" by Time Magazine when the news was released. However, to the biblical literalist, it would be "Mrs Noah"!

Of course, science has proven that all humans now alive are decended from one woman, called "Eve" by Time Magazine when the news was released. However, to the biblical literalist, it would be "Mrs Noah"!

of course.

you refute an "argument" not backed by evidence saying that creationism is a fact...

by saying that evolution is a fact, citing Time Magazine as your all encompassing source. way to go.

Of course, science has proven that all humans now alive are decended from one woman, called "Eve" by Time Magazine when the news was released. However, to the biblical literalist, it would be "Mrs Noah"!

It's mitochondrial Eve. And that's what evolution predicted anyways, so it wins again.


Also, there were multiple women on the ark, according to Genesis. Not only have you never read a basic biology textbook, you've never read the Bible.

Of course, science has proven that all humans now alive are decended from one woman, called "Eve" by Time Magazine when the news was released. However, to the biblical literalist, it would be "Mrs Noah"!

No fucking way. No fucking way.

It's not possible. It's totally fucking impossible for our beloved forum to have this many goddamn fucking trolls on it now. Jesus Fucking Christ. It's just not possible.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Fried Tuna;12004643']Actually, the very fact that such test cannot be made makes the idea of a designer false by the standards of modern science. Science is evaluated by it's falsifiability. A theory of gravity is held true because the one that invented it gave a very firm set of rules that objects must follow for the theory to be true, if these rules are broken in any situation the theory is false, if they are repeatedly tested in different situations and never found false they must be true.
a = m (aristotle) -> found false by dropping 2 different mass objects at the same time ->
a = g (galileo) -> false in high friction ->
F = ma, F = gm, if friction is small a = g (newton) -> false far from earth ->
g = grav_cstnt*m1m2/R^2 (newton) -> false near massive or fast-moving objects ->
general relativity (einstein) -> false for very small objects -> ?

The thing is, a theory of gravity can be proven false because it defines something strict that actually can be tested. Then it proven false until we get one that is true. You are not defining anything with your "theory" of the creator, thus it's not a theory, not even a hypothesis. It holds just as much credit as my claim that there is a non-corporeal invisible pink unicorn flying behind your back.

you forget to mention the very equation that makes "created evolution" quite possible. and it has to do with einstein.

einstein found that, with his theory of general relativity, the universe was expanding but decelerating, implicating an ultimate creation point.

Of course, science has proven that all humans now alive are decended from one woman, called "Eve" by Time Magazine when the news was released. However, to the biblical literalist, it would be "Mrs Noah"!

You do know what ancestry is, yes? Two people in the last generation, 4 people in the one before, 8 people before that, 16 before that (which would be a generation living in the mid-19th century now), 32 before that, etc., etc.

If you go back far enough, you'll find that you have a multitude of ancestors, several hundred thousands. And you will also find, if you go back about 150 000 years (roughly 4 500 000 generations) that there is one ancestor in your line that you share with all living human beings. That's one ancestor out of several million living at the same time. This person would be the mitochondrial Eve.

you forget to mention the very equation that makes "created evolution" quite possible. and it has to do with einstein.

einstein found that, with his theory of general relativity, the universe was expanding but decelerating, implicating an ultimate creation point.

That makes created abogenesis possible. It doesn't even touch on evolution.

You do know what ancestry is, yes? Two people in the last generation, 4 people in the one before, 8 people before that, 16 before that (which would be a generation living in the mid-19th century now), 32 before that, etc., etc.

If you go back far enough, you'll find that you have a multitude of ancestors, several hundred thousands. And you will also find, if you go back about 150 000 years (roughly 4 500 000 generations) that there is one ancestor in your line that you share with all living human beings. That's one ancestor out of several million living at the same time. This person would be the mitochondrial Eve.

dont lecture.

genetics and ancestry are simply not this guy's forte.

That makes created abogenesis possible. It doesn't even touch on evolution.

please explain... im tired and having a hard time wrapping my head around your argument.

No fucking way. No fucking way.

It's not possible. It's totally fucking impossible for our beloved forum to have this many goddamn fucking trolls on it now. Jesus Fucking Christ. It's just not possible.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

As proved by the 'meanstoanend" infestation, this is a troll-friendly forum with troll-friendly mods.

It should come as no surprise they're multiplying now that they know this is a safe place to do their graffiti.

dont lecture.

genetics and ancestry are simply not this guy's forte.

Too bad for him. Maybe he shouldn't make statements about them, then.

Too bad for him. Maybe he shouldn't make statements about them, then.

*cough cough*troll*cough*

please explain... im tired and having a hard time wrapping my head around your argument.

The theory of evolution doesn't include any speculation on how life first started. It only lays out the observed rules according to which it evolves and changes.
Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) is the generation of life from non-living matter, and there are various theories about that around.

So, to say that the possibility that the universe was created makes it also possible that life was created might be worth consideration. They could have come in the same package.
However, to say that the universe was possibly created and therefore the evolution of life might be guided today is a bit of a far leap, as it suggest not only a one-time creation but an ongoing supernatural interference.

The theory of evolution doesn't include any speculation on how life first started. It only lays out the observed rules according to which it evolves and changes.
Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) is the generation of life from non-living matter, and there are various theories about that around.

So, to say that the possibility that the universe was created makes it also possible that life was created might be worth consideration. They could have come in the same package.
However, to say that the universe was possibly created and therefore the evolution of life might be guided today is a bit of a far leap, as it suggest not only a one-time creation but an ongoing supernatural interference.

it does require a bit of a leap but does explain a few deficiencies of intelligent design and evolution on their own.

it does require a bit of a leap but does explain a few deficiencies of intelligent design and evolution on their own.

It's a clearly in the realm of faith, though. You won't ever be able to prove or disprove it, you can't use it to predict future patterns of natural events, so it has no scientific value in itself. You're free to believe it if you like, but scientist will go on looking for a better (scientific and useful) explanation of observations.

I'd sooner shoot myself. I'm glad some people understand all that, because I have no patience for it. I try to learn enough to get by in general knowledge, and I leave the rest.

Then you shouldn't knock the knowledge that other people who have taken the time and effort to learn. Would you trust an engineer without a iota of medical knowledge to perform heart surgery on you? No? That's because it's common sense.

It's also common sense to take all these so called "intelligent designers" without an iota of actual understandings of biology to their credit and dump their arguments into the rubbish bin.

To do otherwise while not getting surgery by said engineer is to be a hypocrite.

I figure you're probably TRA's other face.


I do not understand how so many people accept the theory when I do not see that it is so believable.

Some people didn't believe the earth was a sphere either. Not even into the 20th century. Not even when confronted with undeniable evidence of orbital images. They were idiots who clung to their belief because without it, they'd realize just what idiots they were.

You say you don't believe it, and yet at the same time, you say that you don't understand biology much and don't wish to. This says you don't believe because you don't understand because you refuse to.

It also means you desire to remain an ignorant dunce.

It's a clearly in the realm of faith, though. You won't ever be able to prove or disprove it, you can't use it to predict future patterns of natural events, so it has no scientific value in itself. You're free to believe it if you like, but scientist will go on looking for a better (scientific and useful) explanation of observations.

its a presented theory in a book inauspiciously titled "The Fingerpring of God" by Hugh Ross, an astronomer. many mathematical and physics-type equations and scientific reasoning galore to explain it. and its not even self glorifying, either. there are citations galore from many secular scientific studies and books.

Then you shouldn't knock the knowledge that other people who have taken the time and effort to learn. Would you trust an engineer without a iota of medical knowledge to perform heart surgery on you? No? That's because it's common sense.

It's also common sense to take all these so called "intelligent designers" without an iota of actual understandings of biology to their credit and dump their arguments into the rubbish bin.

To do otherwise while not getting surgery by said engineer is to be a hypocrite.

I figure you're probably TRA's other face.



Some people didn't believe the earth was a sphere either. Not even into the 20th century. Not even when confronted with undeniable evidence of orbital images. They were idiots who clung to their belief because without it, they'd realize just what idiots they were.

You say you don't believe it, and yet at the same time, you say that you don't understand biology much and don't wish to. This says you don't believe because you don't understand because you refuse to.

It also means you desire to remain an ignorant dunce.

hahahahaha... you think all engineers and heart surgeons believe in macro-evolution. That's one I can prove beyond reasonable doubt as wrong.

its a presented theory in a book inauspiciously titled "The Fingerpring of God" by Hugh Ross, an astronomer. many mathematical and physics-type equations and scientific reasoning galore to explain it. and its not even self glorifying, either. there are citations galore from many secular scientific studies and books.

*lol
You do start to sound a bit like that was the only book you ever read ;)
I do believe that the book is about the perceived slowing of the expansion of the universe? If so, what statement do you assume that makes about ongoing manipulation of natural processed here on earth by a supernatural being?

hahahahaha... you think all engineers and heart surgeons believe in macro-evolution. That's one I can prove beyond reasonable doubt as wrong.

Oh dear... talk about reading comprehension. :rolleyes:
He simply states that when you're looking for heart surgery, you wouldn't ask an engineer to do it. For the very simple and clear reason that heart surgery is hardly his field of expertise.
The same is true when looking for a scientific explanation of natural processes. You would ask someone who studied them in detail, rather than someone who just read a single 2000 year old book that doesn't even explicitly deal with the subject at hand.

Not only do we now have these damn 'faith' schools and 'acadamies' popping up all over the show

Faith schools are hardly new in the UK... the Anglican church and other denominations (though with the latter mostly through Sunday schools) were in on the act of educating the people well before the government got over its fear of educating the masses and got involved.

As far my experience of faith schools, I went to a Catholic school, and the Vatican has reconciled evolution to Christianity to an extent, so it wasn't really an issue that came up. And actually, rather than the teachers bringing it up in biology class, it is in the International Baccalaureate syllabus for biology to 'discuss other theories for the origin of species', including ID and panspermia :eek: egads no! (though one must look at what basis they work from... hence ID's roots in a faith-based system)

But since I do not see science as disconnected from life and our society (and hence our morals, ethics and other shaping factors), I do not see a problem with incorporating into lessons the discussion of challenges to science from outside of its sphere, such as ID. I suppose it's akin to challenges to medical testing on animals - animal rights activists aren't necessarily scientists and often approach the problem from a non-scientific basis, yet we do not discredit them solely on that basis.
You can't look at science in an isolated bubble; and surely, if the teaching is as it should be, the idea of the scientific process (and hence a desire to use it when faced with various problems) should be embedded in the student anyway? Mentioning ID as a challenge to evolution shouldn't automatically make people forget everything else they've learned about science...

I try to learn enough to get by in general knowledgeYou do?

and I leave the rest.That "rest" is all there is.

When you're looking for heart surgery, you wouldn't ask an engineer to do it. For the very simple and clear reason that heart surgery is hardly his field of expertise.
The same is true when looking for a scientific explanation of natural processes. You would ask someone who studied them in detail, rather than someone who just read a single 2000 year old book that doesn't even explicitly deal with the subject at hand.This bears repeating.

Yes, evolution is bunk. :p

I don't understand how people can even think of it as making sense. A chicken becomes a dog after thousand of mutations (most of which we have seen are fatal or cause horrible birth defects) and after many catastrophes (which wipe out all life except for these several species which just happen to be perfectly suited to survive).......

I just don't understand how people accept it.

EDIT: The above is an example of the use of hyperbole: extreme exaggeration to prove a point.

i dont think any scientist believe that dogs came from chickens.

evolution doesnt make any more sense than some random guy building the universe, who no one has ever seen except people who have gone on killing sprees and he pushes you if you are good or bad but your fate is predecided. really fair. what a super god.

Of course, science has proven that all humans now alive are decended from one woman, called "Eve" by Time Magazine when the news was released. However, to the biblical literalist, it would be "Mrs Noah"!

Hah, that is rather funny. Because you misinterpret what the "Mitochondrial Eve" refers to. Nobody claimed it was a single female, as that would not be genetically possible. What the Mitochondrial Eve refers to is a very small group of pre-modern humans whom had very similar genetic codes, possibly due to very close relation. The reasoning for this is the idea that the various human species have had population expansions and subsequent bottlenecks through our history, with number going extremely low(A few hundred, or possibly a few hundred). Nobody worth their weight in any field would ever claim it ever got down to the point of a single individual.

Hah, that is rather funny. Because you misinterpret what the "Mitochondrial Eve" refers to. Nobody claimed it was a single female, as that would not be genetically possible. What the Mitochondrial Eve refers to is a very small group of pre-modern humans whom had very similar genetic codes, possibly due to very close relation. The reasoning for this is the idea that the various human species have had population expansions and subsequent bottlenecks through our history, with number going extremely low(A few hundred, or possibly a few hundred). Nobody worth their weight in any field would ever claim it ever got down to the point of a single individual.

I believe the number is estimated at 50,000 individuals. Don't quote me on this, cos the book its in is at home home, not uni home. One of the Science of Discworld series, I believe.

hahahahaha... you think all engineers and heart surgeons believe in macro-evolution. That's one I can prove beyond reasonable doubt as wrong.

Where was that said?

Meanwhile, I once met a Chemist - a man with a PhD in Chemistry - who believed that there were no such thing as dinosaurs. He thought every fossil was faked or completely misinterpreted. Why? Because dinosaurs aren't in the Bible. (Of course, molecules, protons, electrons, etc. aren't mentioned either, but I guess that didn't bother him).


I suppose it's akin to challenges to medical testing on animals - animal rights activists aren't necessarily scientists and often approach the problem from a non-scientific basis, yet we do not discredit them solely on that basis.

Actually, I do pretty much ignore their arguments on that basis. Maybe if they would live up to their own standards and stop benefiting from animal testing by using medical technology, I might be inclined to listen to them. But, as it is, they're just a bunch of idiots who don't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who thinks that we could have the kind of progress in medicine that we currently have without sacrificing some animals is an idiot - plain and simple.

You can't look at science in an isolated bubble; and surely, if the teaching is as it should be, the idea of the scientific process (and hence a desire to use it when faced with various problems) should be embedded in the student anyway? Mentioning ID as a challenge to evolution shouldn't automatically make people forget everything else they've learned about science...

Actually, I think ID would be ok in a science class, under one circumstance. It should be used as an example of poor science. The problems with it - the fact that it does not use the scientific method and includes unfalsifiable claims - should be pointed out in detail. Maybe, just maybe, students would then come out of a science class with some understanding of the scientific method and its bounds.

Actually, I think ID would be ok in a science class, under one circumstance. It should be used as an example of poor science. The problems with it - the fact that it does not use the scientific method and includes unfalsifiable claims - should be pointed out in detail. Maybe, just maybe, students would then come out of a science class with some understanding of the scientific method and its bounds.

This is a good point. One of the best ways of teaching concepts is with a negative example; scientists often ask a negative question to answer another positive one. eg. Why does X do <this>? can be examined by asking What if X didn't to <this>? It's good science. :)

Actually, I think ID would be ok in a science class, under one circumstance. It should be used as an example of poor science. The problems with it - the fact that it does not use the scientific method and includes unfalsifiable claims - should be pointed out in detail. Maybe, just maybe, students would then come out of a science class with some understanding of the scientific method and its bounds.

Don't even give them that. Because you know that the teacher would be harassed because he is biased and not doing his job!

It's mitochondrial Eve. And that's what evolution predicted anyways, so it wins again.


Also, there were multiple women on the ark, according to Genesis. Not only have you never read a basic biology textbook, you've never read the Bible.
Of course, if you had read the Bible, you would have noticed that they were all (other than "Mrs Noah") the wives of her sons!

Where was that said?
Actually, I do pretty much ignore their arguments on that basis. Maybe if they would live up to their own standards and stop benefiting from animal testing by using medical technology, I might be inclined to listen to them. But, as it is, they're just a bunch of idiots who don't have a clue what they're talking about. Anyone who thinks that we could have the kind of progress in medicine that we currently have without sacrificing some animals is an idiot - plain and simple.


Ya, I'm not a big fan of animal rights activism, but mainly because I feel it's a movement largely discredited by radicals and pseudo-terrorist groups. Plus I feel that the benefits of animal testing mostly outweigh the costs.
But I suppose what I was getting at in general is that science is arguably not the 'pure, completely rational and neutral' field of study it is made out to be and cut off from society, which is not always so rational and so on.


Actually, I think ID would be ok in a science class, under one circumstance. It should be used as an example of poor science. The problems with it - the fact that it does not use the scientific method and includes unfalsifiable claims - should be pointed out in detail. Maybe, just maybe, students would then come out of a science class with some understanding of the scientific method and its bounds.

That's pretty much how it was presented to me in the IB syllabus. There was a stress on the fact that ID and other religious alternatives to evolution do fall outside of the realm of scientific study. This, I felt, did not detract from evolution's main scientific premise, but it did present scientific issues as interacting with other forces in society.

Of course, if you had read the Bible, you would have noticed that they were all (other than "Mrs Noah") the wives of her sons!

Thus meaning that they were not all descendents of Noah's wife.

Losing it Big Time,,

May I suggest that you read the exchange between H.G Wells (an evolutionist) and Hilaire Belloc (an intelligent man) published in the early XXth century, in which Belloc demolishes the macroevolutionary argument to the point that Wells refused at the end to reply?

Is there an online transcript. I would very much like to read that.