The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[CaliNORML]

"First, let's get rid of the idea that ID (intelligent design) is a form of sly creationism. It isn't."

KMS

 

[Engimo]

"First, let's get rid of the idea that ID (intelligent design) is a form of sly creationism. It isn't."

KMS

He's right. There is no slyness to ID at all, it's a rather blatant form of creationism.

 

[CaliNORML]

Growing numbers of Biology experts in evolution disagree.

KMS

 

[Engimo]

Growing numbers of Biology experts in evolution disagree.

KMS

That's cute. Let's see a source for that, buddy.
:lol:

 

[CaliNORML]

I posted the links above click "here" on those words for the web links. They will take you to the websites where this subject is debated. There was not enough room in this are to post it all in its entire discussion. I will not make a 4 page long post in this forum, when web links work just as well.

KMS

 

[Engimo]

I posted the links above click "here" on those words for the web links. It will take you to the websites where this is debated. There was not enough room in this are to post it all in its entire discussion. I will not make a 4 page long post in this forum, when web links work just as well.

KMS

This article you posted -
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050922_ID_main.html

Is a scathing attack on ID, and it pretty much hits all the main points. Why don't you try reading it?

 

[CaliNORML]

The entire six page report was the overall concept that I was leading to, there were 5 links posted, not only 1 or 2. I see by the time it took you to rebut me, that you could not possibly have read them all.

KMS

 

[CaliNORML]

In this debate I am trying to say Creationism is the though that "GOD" said this is how Human kind will be. POOF, we are.

I.D. states this is what science tells us that we are, this is what we know physicaly about those idea's related to "GOD," and physical parts of the evolution of humans brains is linked to the physical aspects we deem "GOD LIKE."

Now why?

Some say back to square 1. "GOD" made it so.

Scientist are as yet unable to pin it on "GOD", however the chain of evidence to this question "why?" still needs to be answered.

I myself do not believe in Creationism. These are only my views.

I do however see the physical trend of our design, and am able to link it into the physical changes we see in medicine and science. This is indeed a leap of abstract, which according to the research is harder and harder for humans to make, due to this process. Yet the science is there to back it up.

I am of the opinion I read by a researcher who was a proclaimed Agnostic.

"When we finally do reach the pinnacle of science, I have this strange feeling that religion may have been there all along."

KMS

 

[Mr. D]

"First, let's get rid of the idea that ID (intelligent design) is a form of sly creationism. It isn't."

KMS

:spin:

You're right, it isn't very sly! It's pretty obvious that it's creationism relabeled! Teach it in your church and home where religion belongs! We all defend your right to do that! Don't shove it on other people's children in schools that belong to "ALL OF US" not just fundamentalist Christians! Don't call Intelligent Design science because that is embarrassingly silly!
:2wave:

 

[libertarian_knight]

"First, let's get rid of the idea that ID (intelligent design) is a form of sly creationism. It isn't."

KMS

Creation ==> Creation Science ==>Intelligent Design.

Now, intelligent design COULD include an alien, no deity, intelligence. Or humans going back in time to improve human evolution.

However, most of the ID stuff I have seen is either based on false premises (that an evolutionary feature MUST be beneficial at all times in order to develop), or leaps in logic (that because they don't understand HOW it was created, but note HOW it works, means only an intelligence is capble of having produced it. Better called "Intelligent Design of the Gaps.")

That is not to say there isn't or could never be any functional basis for ID in science, in a secular model, however ID has yet to earn it's wings or stripes yet. It's IDers job to support their case, not ours to accept it because they made the claim. You know this. The support, at best, is very minimal and largely conjecture.

 

[oracle25]

It always makes me laugh when people say intelligent design is not science. The best thing to do is just smile and let them go on living in there own little dream world. Eventually the last remaining threads of evolution will fall, it's only a matter of time. So, to all you evolutionists out there, let the real scientists handle things. And then you can go and live your life in ignorance until you die.

 

[Engimo]

It always makes me laugh when people say intelligent design is not science. The best thing to do is just smile and let them go on living in there own little dream world. Eventually the last remaining threads of evolution will fall, it's only a matter of time. So, to all you evolutionists out there, let the real scientists handle things. And then you can go and live your life in ignorance until you die.

Cool, unsubstantiated ignorant statements! I just love those! Let's belittle the people making an argument instead of actually addressing it and act really smug at the same time, that'll be fun!

 

[oracle25]

Creation ==> Creation Science ==>Intelligent Design.

Now, intelligent design COULD include an alien, no deity, intelligence. Or humans going back in time to improve human evolution.

However, most of the ID stuff I have seen is either based on false premises (that an evolutionary feature MUST be beneficial at all times in order to develop), or leaps in logic (that because they don't understand HOW it was created, but note HOW it works, means only an intelligence is capble of having produced it. Better called "Intelligent Design of the Gaps.")

That is not to say there isn't or could never be any functional basis for ID in science, in a secular model, however ID has yet to earn it's wings or stripes yet. It's IDers job to support their case, not ours to accept it because they made the claim. You know this. The support, at best, is very minimal and largely conjecture.

May I remind you that the concept of ID has been around for thousands of years. Virtually all founders of modern science believed in some sort of creator. Iintelligent Design has already stood the test of time, it infallible with no quirks. It is EVOLUTIONISTS that must prove there absurd theory. Saying that ID is not science is like saying it is not science that the earth is round, it's about that silly.

 

[oracle25]

Cool, unsubstantiated ignorant statements! I just love those! Let's belittle the people making an argument instead of actually addressing it and act really smug at the same time, that'll be fun!

Note, that you have just done what you accused me of doing.

 

[Engimo]

Note, that you have just done what you accused me of doing.

No, you simply didn't make an argument. I take exception to your dismissal of other people's arguments in such a manner. If you make an argument, rest assure that I won't do what you just did and I'll actually respond to the points.

 

[Engimo]

May I remind you that the concept of ID has been around for thousands of years. Virtually all founders of modern science believed in some sort of creator. Iintelligent Design has already stood the test of time, it infallible with no quirks. It is EVOLUTIONISTS that must prove there absurd theory. Saying that ID is not science is like saying it is not science that the earth is round, it's about that silly.

The scientific method has not been around for thousands of years, so claiming that it has withstood the test of time is irrelevant. Also, the idea that something being around for a while makes it valid is nonsense, what about geocentrism or demons being the cause of infection?

 

[oracle25]

Fine, I can argue anything you want. Pick a point of the debate that you want me to adress.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Note, that you have just done what you accused me of doing.

Yeah, but you didn't make an argument did you? Therefor the "instead of actually adressing addressing it" part that make his critique valid, and yours not, since you submitted no arguement.

 

[Engimo]

Fine, I can argue anything you want. Pick a point of the debate that you want me to adress.

How does a failure of Evolutionary Theory provide any evidence for Intelligent Design?

 

[libertarian_knight]

Fine, I can argue anything you want. Pick a point of the debate that you want me to adress.

Fine, how about well, the topic and point fo this thread, that validity of ID as science, and more importantly as valid established science, rather than inference and conjecture often based on false premises.

 

[oracle25]

The scientific method has not been around for thousands of years, so claiming that it has withstood the test of time is irrelevant. Also, the idea that something being around for a while makes it valid is nonsense, what about egocentrism or demons being the cause of infection?

It seems to be what evolutionists are implying, "evolution has been accepted for a hundred and forty years so it must be true" isn't that your argument?

Besides that the scientific method has been used for a great number of years. Did Newton use the scientific method? How about Einstein? Both of them believed in a creator.

 

[Engimo]

It seems to be what evolutionists are implying, "evolution has been accepted for a hundred and forty years so it must be true" isn't that your argument?

No, not at all. Evolutionists claim that Evolution is valid because it has massive amounts of experimental evidence behind it.

Besides that the scientific method has been used for a great number of years. Did Newton use the scientific method? How about Einstein? Both of them believed in a creator.

Newton did, probably. The scientific method was spawned out of the ideas of Francis Bacon (17th century) and other philosophers that advocated empircal thought. Einstein did, of course. Unfortunately for your nonsensical argument, Einstein was an agnostic/atheist - which is really entirely not relevant. What are you trying to say, "These people are really smart, and they believed in God, so it must be true!". That's called an Appeal to Authority, buddy.

 

[oracle25]

Einstein was an Agnostic, not an Atheist. What I am trying to say by that is that the idea that ID is not science is something that even the greatest scientific minds in history rejected.

As to your question, problems in evolution do not prove ID by themselves. Because of the vast amounts of problems with evolution in virtually all areas of science, however, many scientists have concluded that evolution is not possible. ID on the other hand seems to be supported by almost everything in science. So problems with evolution do not equal ID they simply provide the need for another alternative, ID is the best.

 

[Engimo]

Einstein was an Agnostic, not an Atheist. What I am trying to say by that is that the idea that ID is not science is something that even the greatest scientific minds in history rejected.

That doesn't make a difference. It's an appeal to authority that is not relevant. Newton was not a modern biologist, so his opinion about ID is totally irrelevant.

As to your question, problems in evolution do not prove ID by themselves. Because of the vast amounts of problems with evolution in virtually all areas of science, however, many scientists have concluded that evolution is not possible. ID on the other hand seems to be supported by almost everything in science. So problems with evolution do not equal ID they simply provide the need for another alternative, ID is the best.

Really? I'd like to see these "vast problems with Evolution" that you claim exist. Hint: they don't. You won't find any in the actual scientific community, although you might be able to scrape some up from some pro-ID organizations.

 

[oracle25]

You obviously have not kept up with modern science. Virtually all scientists on the cutting edge of research, even evolutionists, will tell you that there are huge problems within evolution, ones that would take a miracle to solve. Of course there are some who try to live in denial about it, but many do not.