Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd FlooWell, let's see...
There was 'Lucy'... then there was you. Proof enough?
Oh yes Lucy...🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.
Lucy definately fits within that category..eh? 😆😆
Please feel free to post more examples of "transitionals"..it only continues to support the "validity" of your argument...🙄
Moving on..
Originally posted by Ushgarak
As ever, the gibbering idiocy involved in labelling the massive and rigorous scientific presence behind evolution as some sort of faith or religion rears its head. Such a naming is so fundamentally wrong that I am astounded that humans can still produce such ideas.
So how does your opinion of someone else's belief system, substantiate Modern evolutionary theory in any way shape or form?
Reading through the past couple of posts...it doesn't seem as if anyone has even attempted to provide any evidence, or answer any questions regarding the validity of "Macro Evolution"..at least not by using anything other than strawman arguments/comments or personal beliefs.
Also..many are confusing ID with Creationism..and although they are similarly related, ID does not attempt to use any particular religious doctrine to validate itself, rather..it uses "science" to validate the existence of intelligence in natures design.
Moving on..let me repeat this statement one more time..and for those of you who are slow on the uptake..please try to respond with substantive scientific data, rather than witty one line retorts.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Please give me a link..or provide for me an example..be it historical, scientific, etc..where macro evolution has been observed. And don't give me any of that "variation" within a family speel..I want hardcore proof of an animal of one particular family..evolving into another one(ie reptile changing into a dog or cat, reptile to bird..etc)And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.
Originally posted by soleran30
Perhaps you are right however when you get to the point in a lecture/discussion on how everything in the universe happens so precisely despite chaos obviously there must be a higher power directing it.......I think we can all look at that and have an idea on what that discussion can lead to...
So thats the premise behind ID and it leaves TONS of room for discussion on religion and understanding how this could have happened.....
Talk about evolution and it shows single generation mutations that have taken place and then set a new precedent for a species(just one example) you can recreate this with a level of certainty
ID you simply say in a world of chaos there is order how can there be order let me demonstrate how order is establshed......um you cannot so it must be God becuase thats "intelligent" am I not understaning this...Help me here......(this is obviously just one example it can go many other ways.)
Originally posted by Eis
Oh.. I've never seen The Wizard of Oz
I meant belief trumps knowledge in Kansas
Well, I would call Intelligent Design belief, and evolution knowledge. And to teach Intelligent Design in equal standing to evolution in school is as stupid as teaching evolution in Sunday school.
Jesus. H. Christ.
CREATIONISM IS A FORM OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN; INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT NECESSARILY CREATIONISM. Get that through your heads.
(Now, what would happen if the same ignorance was shown about evolution? "zomg stupid religious people not knowing nething lolz"😉
While I don't think ID should be taught in schools, just because Kansas has approved the teaching of it doesn't make them "stupid" or "religious hicks".
Whob, if you wish for this debate to not turn into the name-calling, finger-point, insult-tossing crap that every other debate of this nature has become, I would suggest using less laughing in your comments.
As for everyone else, just tossing out insults is my first reaction to this as well. But, let's see how long we can go with out wiping our collective asses with this thread.
The basic argument in this situation is the definition of the theory of 'Intelligent Design'.
Wikipedia describes it as this:
"Intelligent Design (ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection[1].
Adherents of Intelligent Design have claimed that it stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe. [2]
The scientific community has rejected this claim on the grounds that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory but creationist pseudoscience or junk science.[3] Critics have accused Intelligent Design proponents of trying to find gaps within current evolutionary theory only to fill with speculative beliefs, and that Intelligent Design in this context may ultimately amount to the "God of the gaps" [4].
The National Academy of Sciences has said that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own. [5] Proponents of Intelligent Design make the claim that there is a systemic bias within the scientific community against proponents' ideas and research, because of the naturalistic assumption that science can or should only make reference to natural causes. Critics have called this argument polemical, as Intelligent Design, in its opposition (based on teleology) to what it terms "methodological naturalism", is at odds with current scientific philosophy and methodology."
So, basically, it is described as a theological belief that takes all the factual logic of the theory of evolution and fills it's holes with myhtology.
Then we have Evolution:
Evolution is any emergent process of growth or development that entails change. The word stems from the Latin evolutio meaning "unfolding" and before the late 19th century was confined to referring to goal-directed, pre-programmed processes such as embryological development. A pre-programmed task, as in a military maneuver, using this definition, may be termed an "evolution." One can also speak of stellar evolution, chemical evolution, cultural evolution, spiritual evolution or the evolution of an idea. Other kinds of evolution include evolutionary algorithms (which include genetic algorithms) which attempt to mimic processes similar to biological evolution in a computer program, most frequently as an optimization technique and as an experimental framework for the computational modelling of evolution."
So, have a theory that is based on natural selection, adaptation, survival of the fittest, etc. A theory based solely on logic and the exclusion of anything that adheres to mythology or faith.
And then Creationism:
Creationism or creation theology is the belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention. The intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the emergence of order from pre-existing chaos.
Most who hold "creation" beliefs consider such belief to be a part of religious faith, and compatible with, or otherwise unaffected by scientific views, while others maintain the scientific data supports creationism. Proponents of theistic evolution may claim that understood scientific mechanisms are simply aspects of supreme creation. Otherwise, science-oriented believers may consider the scriptural account of creation as simply a metaphor.
Those who hold literal creation views often reject modern views of science and certain scientific theories in particular. Most notable is the rejection of evolution and its implications for current evolutionary biology. While the general idea of natural selection may fit into various particular views, the evolutionary concept of common descent —that humans are "descended from lesser creatures" — is a point of great issue with most creation believers. Most creationists also dispute scientific accounts of the origin of life, origin of the human species, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, the origin of the physical universe and a few even support such ideas as modern geocentrism
Then, we have science:
sci·ence (sî'əns)
n.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
In the definition of science, there is no mention of faith. So, the fact remains, that neither creationism or Intelligent Design are a matter of science.
I would suggest that anyone that supports the descision to include intelligent design in science classes should, rather than fight for ID to be included as science, fight for the definition of science to be changed.
I'm sure that's the next logical step in this most illogical situation.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Jesus. H. Christ.CREATIONISM IS A FORM OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN; INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT NECESSARILY CREATIONISM. Get that through your heads.
(Now, what would happen if the same ignorance was shown about evolution? "zomg stupid religious people not knowing nething lolz"😉
While I don't think ID should be taught in schools, just because Kansas has approved the teaching of it doesn't make them "stupid" or "religious hicks".
So the ancient belief that god defecated and that became the world is a form of intelligent deign? Is every idea about how the world came about part of intelligent deign? I don’t thing so. I have found that when people (like radio commentators) say intelligent deign they mean Christian theology. I am sure if you insisted that intelligent deign was something else other that Christian theology, these people would have a problem with that.
BTW I didn't make up that part about defecation, it was an ancient creation belief. I don't remember who or when, but I thought it would make a good contrast. I am not meaning any insult.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Jesus. H. Christ.CREATIONISM IS A FORM OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN; INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT NECESSARILY CREATIONISM. Get that through your heads.
(Now, what would happen if the same ignorance was shown about evolution? "zomg stupid religious people not knowing nething lolz"😉
While I don't think ID should be taught in schools, just because Kansas has approved the teaching of it doesn't make them "stupid" or "religious hicks".
Yes, it does.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So the ancient belief that god defecated and that became the world is a form of intelligent deign? Is every idea about how the world came about part of intelligent deign? I don’t thing so. I have found that when people (like radio commentators) say intelligent deign they mean Christian theology. I am sure if you insisted that intelligent deign was something else other that Christian theology, these people would have a problem with that.BTW I didn't make up that part about defecation, it was an ancient creation belief. I don't remember who or when, but I thought it would make a good contrast. I am not meaning any insult.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
All Creationists are proponents of Intelligent Design, but not all proponents of Intelligent Design are Creationists.
Intelligent Design, as a whole, is the belief that there is some greater force or higher power that has put the universe in motion (proposed by Aristotle as "the immovable mover"😉. However, most people who support ID say that God set evolution in motion and has been poking at it like a potter pokes at clay he's turning into a jar. Creationists say that the story of Genesis is the literal and factual truth--that the Earth was created in six days by the voice of God.
Thank you, Capt Fantastic, for that bit you posted.
Originally posted by debbiejo
What does the "H" stand for??????? 🙄
Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, it does.
*Sighs.*
On the topic of loaded comments...
its just a way to sneak the bible through the back door and discredit science.
the title "intelligent design" is just a cover and the majority of what will be taught is creationism, of coarse with a token day of class dedicated to teaching the beliefs of heathen religions.
its bullshit and belongs in religion, western civilisation, whatever class that is NOT science. its just more bible beating B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
Originally posted by PVS
its just a way to sneak the bible through the back door and discredit science.
the title "intelligent design" is just a cover and the majority of what will be taught is creationism, of coarse with a token day of class dedicated to teaching the beliefs of heathen religions.its bullshit and belongs in religion, western civilisation, whatever class that is NOT science. its just more bible beating B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
I have to agree with you.
Damn, I hate agreeing with PVS. 😆