creation museum (1 Viewer)

[flashback]

Something is either fact or it is not, if there is room for doubt there is room for alternative speculation. This can only be a good thing as it will ensure that people continue to strive to conclusively prove one theory or another, thus ruling out the risk of accepting something because it is the only option.

Yes.
Something is true or it is not. There is no room for anything else. I said this a while back.

So, why are people, like you, talking about magical men in the sky? Is it willful stupidity or ignorance?
Because, they are the two options.

Evolution, Darwinian evolution, by natural and sexual selection, HAVE BEEN PROVEN.

Conclusively. Nothing is more solidly proven in science. Just as 2 + 2 = 4. There is no difference. Proven.
This is my fucking job. This is what I have been doing for years. I know this stuff, and I know the alternate theories. Every where you look you see more proof. Almost every paper published in biology adds further proof.

There is no need for more proof, yet it comes pouring in.

This is because it is true.

And, ID, spaghetti monsters, God, and everything esle has not one single shred of evidence. Not one. Not a single piece anywhere.

If you do not see this, like I said, you, like others who like these sort of imaginary stories as to how we are here, are ignorant or stupid.

 

[Pantone247]

Have you read any informed opposition in this thread?

I'd say Flashback (is it?) put together a rocking argument based on his working with people in the field... I think he did a good job of explaining it despited being refuted with a lot of "but how do you really know" rethoric... that made more sense to me then them apples that don't exsist

 

[Juno]

Have you read any informed opposition in this thread?

I would've said a lot of it is informed because most people posting seem to have a pretty good idea of what evolution means v ID. The fact that many dismiss it out of hand due to it being unscientific doesn't indicate that they are uninformed but that it doesn't meet the criteria for being an alternative scientific explanation.

 

[Squiggle]

Yep - again, I agree absolutely; but that only adds to my confusion - 'Intelligent design' is not a valid argument, so why bother defending something irrational and unscientific in the name of rationality and science?

Sometimes an argument is just plain wrong, and it helps everybody to dump it and move on. Or should we also defend the idea that the earth is flat, on the same grounds of valuing all theories, even the ones that don't make sense?

Then, as they continue to look for scientific evidence that will become obvious. But as I pointed out before there are many things that we know accept that were once though to be magic, witchcraft or complete 'bullshit'.

Dump things by all means, don't pursue them, don't investigate them. But, don't hurl abuse at people who want to, or who are willing to watch and see where the theory eventually goes, whatever the outcome - how can it hurt... especially if it is a question that we haven't yet got all the answers too.

 

[classic seanc]

There ain't no such thing as meeting science halfway baby!

 

[Squiggle]

I'd say Flashback (is it?) put together a rocking argument based on his working with people in the field... I think he did a good job of explaining it despited being refuted with a lot of "but how do you really know" rethoric... that made more sense to me then them apples that don't exsist

I think I would probably find Flashback's argument more compelling if he refrained from hurling personal abuse.

 

[avernus]

Have you read any informed opposition in this thread?

have you said anything informed in this thread? or have you just played devil's advocate for 25 pages. you, apparently, have no opinions - only opinions on other people's opinions. Intelligent Design is inherently not scientific. It cannot be proven. It relies on faith. It maintains that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause"[.]. That is god. That is not science. What more information would you like?

 

[ITalkShite]

Then, as they continue to look for scientific evidence that will become obvious. But as I pointed out before there are many things that we know accept that were once though to be magic, witchcraft or complete 'bullshit'.

Dump things by all means, don't pursue them, don't investigate them. But, don't hurl abuse at people who want to, or who are willing to watch and see where the theory eventually goes, whatever the outcome - how can it hurt... especially if it is a question that we haven't yet got all the answers too.

But... you're not being consistent here. If 'Intelligent design' doesn't add up, then, by your own reckoning, it should be dumped. So why are you so adamantly insisting on not dumping it? It seems like you're using the idea of open-mindedness to defend something completely close-minded. It's... confusing, to say the least.

 

[snakybus]

Here's some (somewhat) infomed opposition for you, Squiggle.

The idea of irreducible complexity is frequently held up as an examle of "intelligent design" by the proponents of ID. This is a very simplistic argument that claims that, say, a bacterial flagellum could not have arisen on its own, with all the complex building blocks that are required, not only for it to function, but also for it to make any sense. The metaphor of the mousetrap is frequently used - what use is just the wooden base of a mousetrap, and what possible function could it have? It only has any meaning or function when the spring, stage and metal snapper are also attached - so it's irreducibly complex. In much the same way, how can a bacterial flagellum have arisen if, when you take one of its parts away, it doesn't function? Isn't this irreducibly complex?

However, even a basic grounding in zoology will inform you that there are all kinds of things that appear in organisms that might appear to have no use at one point, or have another use, but when they do develop via natural selection, their functionality changes into something useful. In the case of the bacterial flagellum, if you take away some of its parts, it does have a function - for example, what is a bacterial flagellum now in a bacterium before had a different function of injecting poison in more primitive forms.

It takes very little reasoning whatsoever to see that the ID argument is almost silly, it's so weak.

This is an oft-cited example. But if you want more convincing, just look at the development of the eye in organisms. Something that appears irreducibly complex but actually isn't.

 

[Pantone247]

I think I would probably find Flashback's argument more compelling if he refrained from hurling personal abuse.

he wasn't abusive the first time his argument was thrown back it him

I imagine his head is wrecked reading this sort of shit

 

[avernus]

But... you're not being consistent here. If 'Intelligent design' doesn't add up, then, by your own reckoning, it should be dumped. So why are you so adamantly insisting on not dumping it? It seems like you're using the idea of open-mindedness to defend something completely close-minded. It's... confusing, to say the least.

it's also why she's getting abuse. there is nothing more frustrating than arguing with someone who argues in circles, answers questions with questions and all the while acting in a holier than thou manner.

 

[classic seanc]

Here's some (somewhat) infomed opposition for you, Squiggle.

The idea of irreducible complexity is frequently held up as an examle of "intelligent design" by the proponents of ID. This is a very simplistic argument that claims that, say, a bacterial flagellum could not have arisen on its own, with all the complex building blocks that are required, not only for it to function, but also for it to make any sense. The metaphor of the mousetrap is frequently used - what use is just the wooden base of a mousetrap, and what possible function could it have? It only has any meaning or function when the spring, stage and metal snapper are also attached - so it's irreducibly complex. In much the same way, how can a bacterial flagellum have arisen if, when you take one of its parts away, it doesn't function? Isn't this irreducibly complex?

However, even a basic grounding in zoology will inform you that there are all kinds of things that appear in organisms that might appear to have no use at one point, or have another use, but when they do develop via natural selection, their functionality changes into something useful. In the case of the bacterial flagellum, if you take away some of its parts, it does have a function - for example, what is a bacterial flagellum now in a bacterium before had a different function of injecting poison in more primitive forms.

It takes very little reasoning whatsoever to see that the ID argument is almost silly, it's so weak.

This is an oft-cited example. But if you want more convincing, just look at the development of the eye in organisms. Something that appears irreducibly complex but actually isn't.

You’re doing a Mitchum with Dawkins! Snared rappeh!

 

[Squiggle]

This is rediculuous!

Snaky, excellent point, lets discuss over a pint sometime, or not.

Flashback, there are huge holes in the big bang theory, the theory of evolution whatever you like to call it... this doesn't make the theory wrong, but it also makes it inaccurate to say that they have been proven. There is evidence to suggest, but some scientists use the same evidence to suggest alternative premises. It's what makes science interesting, the search for knowledge.

 

[magicbastarder]

speaking of evolution:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6709627.stm

 

[ITalkShite]

But...



But, but...

If snakybus's point is excellent, doesn't that mean that you're... wrong?

Is there some going-around-in-circles loop in the idea of logical argument that I just hadn't known about before?

 

[snakybus]

Sorry Squiggle, but that just shows an inaccurate understanding of "theory", in a scientific sense. The thing about scientific theory is that it's not a "hunch" or a "guess". A scientific theory is a "web" of hypotheses that is based on observable facts. It must lead to accurate predictions, and it must be testable. ID doesn't stand up to this scrutiny. That's the problem. But Darwinism does, and has.

As Flashback has already suggested in a not-very-nice way, the actual occurrence of evolution is not in question. It is a very well-documented thing, with lots of evidence. The theory of evolution doesn't state "evolution occurs". That's a given. What it does is it tries to put all the documented evidence together and explain how it occurs. It that way, you can never say Darwinian evolution is not proven. ID patently is.

To put in context, ID is the science version of "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction".

 

[Pantone247]

If I was Flashback, had spent time studying in a certain field, worked in the field, I'd be disgusted at being patronised like this...

as a graphic designer I can only imagine its like someone arguing that green is actually red and everytime I say "no it's actually green" someone saying "well that's your perception of it"

there's being devils advocate and then there's being contrary for the sake of being contrary

 

[snakybus]

You’re doing a Mitchum with Dawkins! Snared rappeh!

my hole I am - I wrote that myself!

 

[avernus]

as a graphic designer I can only imagine its like someone arguing that green is actually red and everytime I say "no it's actually green" someone saying "well that's your perception of it"

I've had a conversation similar to this with a client.

 

[RSJ]

I gave up reading this thread a good few pages ago. I don't know if creationism is the way, or evolution, but i do know that someone would have to have a GIGANTIC stick up their arse to argue that creationism is as valid a theory as evolution. I think this thread has finally thought me the meaning of the word "asinine".