For Thoth's sake, stop with the trolling! I should just leave this thread so I don't have to hear your stupid face anymore.Devilpapaya said:
Darwinsim V.S. Creationism
- Thread starter banhammer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Indeed it is and you seem quite blissful. You asked earlier how you were a troll, well since I feel like it, I'll explain. A troll is a person whose post is meant to anger or provoke hostility, whether or not that is the intent of the person creating the thread. Thus far you have maybe two people in this thread who are not either annoyed, angry or simply do not give a damn. Therefore by the definition of what a troll is, you are just that.banhammer said:
And before you ask, this is a troll topic because you are not allotting open minded discussion. You are subjecting people to your beliefs because you believe theirs are ignorant or misguided and I ask what right was granted to you deem yourself the authority to make that decision? Personally I admit to finding religion absolutely ridiculous, however that is my opinion and so long as people are willing to accept that, I have no reason to force it upon them.
You know, the world would be spared a headache if everyone would shut up about religion and just accept some people cannot fathom a God while others cannot believe otherwise. Who cares? Believe whatever you want and move on with your life.
Trolling is always intentional, or it isn't trolling. It HAS to be intentional, otherwise there wouldn't ever be a question of "Is he a troll?" because it would be perspective. Take it from a troll.Bourne said:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DARWINISM.
Creationists invented that word to try to discredit the scientific community and make it sound like a religion to validate their claims. Evolution is FACT not simply religeous belief.
This is (one of the many, many reasons) why I hate creationists they spew bullshit and look you right in the eye while doing so!!
....this is such a troll thread.
Creationists invented that word to try to discredit the scientific community and make it sound like a religion to validate their claims. Evolution is FACT not simply religeous belief.
This is (one of the many, many reasons) why I hate creationists they spew bullshit and look you right in the eye while doing so!!
....this is such a troll thread.
Well maybe Hitler should kill all the fucking jews. Your parents should have aborted you. Mexicans should get their own country. Everyone here are just a bunch of whiney ass game nerds who want to ***** at each other. Saying you don't want to is a lie and I hope every fucking kid you produce has polio. Eat shit all of you. It makes no sense why you get so worked up about something you partake in and seemingly enjoy. I personally enjoy watching kids get beat by their parents. Because I enjoy this I do not prevent it. Take a lesson, if you enjoy something (fighting on forums) do not like about it and say you dont just because the mods on this site are wonky ass Aussies with boomarangs shoved so far up their Australian asses they think they had super powers. They are just super nerds with mod abilities on a nerd site. Which means they will not have to worry about their kids getting polio because a girl most likely will never let them touch her... Willingly...
Eh, it is debateable. Some people are so willfully ignorant, they actually do not realize or believe they are trolling. I suppose you could chalk in up as spam in that case however either works.TikiShades said:
The advent of modern scientific thought has led to a dramatic increase in humanity?s focus on the secular. As a society we have gradually learned to look inward toward the material and depend upon our own intellect in order to understand the nature of the universe. The comprehension of the physical sciences has offered everything to mankind, providing us with the foundations of an enlightened civilization and all the comforts of technology necessary for progression. In comparison, religion has all but failed to provide any of the benefits that it has promised. Mankind has realized that there can and never will be any manna from the heavens; everything that man has built, he has constructed of his own abilities. Nothing humanity has ever done or perceived in natural reality has necessitated the presence of a divine intellect. Religion has become consumed by the incursion of human reason and lingers only as an old habit brought about by our past ignorance. Yet it continues to cling to its diminished existence, trying to reassert itself into the essence of human thought from which it has been expelled.
Nothing has become so evocative of religion?s dying presence within modern society than the debate between evolution and intelligent design. The debate wages continuously between those who believe in the natural processes that create life and those who believe in a divine influence that creates life. With intelligent design?s lack of scientific relevance and ever dwindling number of proponents, it seems inevitable that this pillar of faith will be purged from humanity?s central perception of the universe in favor of the physical sciences.
This trend of ?intelligent design? was created shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that the teaching of creation science alongside evolution was in violation of the Establishment Clause. This ruling caused Phillip E. Johnson to advocate the redefinition of science in his book Darwin on Trial in order to allow processes of supernatural creation to be viewed as a legitimate field of study. Johnson, along with grass root support groups, aimed to annul the empirical nature of the scientific method and replace it with "theistic realism". In accord with the growing ?intelligent design? movement, eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, sued the Dover Area School District for an evolutionary statement that was required to be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes. The suit was tried from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 before Judge John E. Jones III. On December 20, 2005 Judge Jones issued his findings and ruled that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, banning the teaching of intelligent design in Pennsylvania's science classrooms.
The current evidence for evolution is practically indisputable and serves as the backbone of many scientific fields of study. Fossil records demonstrating decent with modification, microbial adaptations to environmental challenges, transitional forms, vestigial traits, genetic mutation and countless other indicators have become imperative to our understanding of biological functions. The core belief of the evolutionary process is held by basic four tenets; that individuals within a population are variable, this variation is heritable, in every generation some individuals are more successful at surviving and reproducing, and the individuals with the most favorable variations (who are better at surviving and reproducing) are selected to procreate (Freeman 490). Through these four laws, scientists are able to test if evolution occurs within any given population through the scientific method. Such tests have been conducted on a variety of organisms (mostly species with very high reproductive rates) and all resulting data has confirmed the processes of evolution as an active phenomenon within organic beings (Freeman 503-523). In populations with much slower reproductive rates, it is necessary to look at fossil records, comparative anatomy or Mendelian genetics to test if the evolutionary process applies. An overwhelming amount of evidence points toward evolution as the driving factor behind the creation of new species in all organisms regardless of reproductive rates or ?complexity?. No theory has ever been presented that matches the validity of evolution in the history of science. It is commonly held throughout out the scientific community as the most comprehensive explanatory system for understanding findings from paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, physiology, ecology, population genetics, and molecular genetics. Evolution is a field of science because it logically proves many of the answers science needs while adhering to the scientific method; something that intelligent design fails spectacularly at.
Arguments for intelligent design do not rely so much on proving the existence of a divine creator, but instead try to find holes in the evolutionary theory. Such tactics usually involve an attempt to demonstrate the complexity of animal systems or the theoretical ambiguity of the evolutionary processes. One such explanation known as irreducible complexity has gained prominence as one of the key approaches from the intelligent design movement, claiming that a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts would cease to function if any one of these parts were removed. Thereby these systems (such as an eye or any other organ system) could not operate unless they had been immediately assembled in a certain way. Specified complexity is another argument that tries to illustrate the complexity of life by arguing the mathematical improbability that unguided processes could lead to the intricate patterns of life. Proponents of intelligent design uphold the fact that this wide variety of complexities found in living organisms indicates the presence of a guiding factor in their formation, namely a centralized intelligence. Still, the most commonly held argument heard from the evolutionary opposition is the claim that the theory of evolution itself is under constant debate in scientific circles and that science as a whole is undecided about evolution. Many critics cite the theoretical nature of evolution and suggest that current experiments in evolution (such as those conducted on fruit flies and bacteria) serve as evidence of scientific uncertainty in determining its existence. In emphasizing these negative points against evolutionary theory, proponents of intelligent design seek to destabilize the conventional mode of scientific thought and reestablish the divine as a scientifically relevant function.
So the question remains, is intelligent design a viable scientific area of study? The answer is a resounding ?no? from every scientific field. The key foundation of all scientific thought can be attributed to two fundamental tenets: the observable axiom and naturalistic axiom. The observable axiom denotes man?s ability to accurately observe his surroundings and create laws to describe it. The naturalistic axiom maintains that every event that has ever happened, is happening or will happen can be quantified through math, chemistry, physics or biology. Science requires both axioms in order to function properly and any deviation from these laws would annul everything on which our universal perceptions are built. Intelligent design seeks to directly violate these foundations by introducing the supernatural as a viable cause for any physical event while simultaneously refusing to produce physical evidence in support of their claim. Not only does intelligent design fail to meet the most basic scientific standards, but both arguments for intelligent design and against evolution are decisively unfound.
The foremost argument employed by proponents of intelligent design is an outright attempt to slur the consensus of the scientific community. They argue that the theory of evolution is under constant debate within scientific circles and that science as a whole remains undecided about evolution. This claim could not be further from the truth as evolution was universally adopted by The National Center for Science Education and by extension over sixty scientific associations in 1995 (Statements). It is regarded as a cornerstone of modern science; a basic component of anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy and every other natural science. The principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to all scientific criteria. The only real debate between scientists involving evolution is in determining the exact processes that cause it, although natural selection is commonly believed.
Many of the so called "holes" in evolutionary theory are simply holes in the critics' understanding of science. Claims trumping the concepts of irreducible complexity or the specified complexity argument have been thoroughly explained and proven incorrect by multiple studies on evolutionary mechanics (Wein) (Dunkelberg). Many critics also make the mistake of pointing towards current experiments in evolutionary theory (such as those conducted on fruit flies and bacteria) as showing scientific uncertainty. Those who make this argument are oblivious to many of the experiments conducted on gravity and relativity today, almost 315 years after Newton presented his gravitational theory and nearly a century after Einstein first published his work on relativity. Both theories are continually tested to this day despite their prominence as scientific fact.
This same flaw applies to critics who are ignorant to the scientific usage of the word "theory" and claim that this definition shows that no conclusive proof has been determined. For example, both the concepts of gravity and relativity are both theories but their implications to reality are unquestionable. Gravity, special relativity and evolution are all classified as theoretical because they attempt to rationalize the world around us based on careful experimentation and examination of evidence. In science, facts are used to support theories as evidence, and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
At the same time, those who argue against evolution ignore the lack of evidence for their own positions. They cannot provide data to disprove evolution or prove their own ideas. Proponents say that any evidence pointing to the nature of an intelligent designer may not be directly observable as its effects on nature can not be perceived. Indeed, the intelligent design movement has not proposed any scientific means of testing its claims since its creation twenty years ago. No tests have been proposed to identify the alleged effects of a creator because this idea is an intrinsic principle of religious pseudo-science. This constant assumption contrasts violently with the true fields of science, as any hypothesis or theory remains subject to possible rejection or modification in response to new knowledge. Religion, however, will always remain unchanging in the belief of an all powerful god in spite of any evidence presented to the contrary.
Intelligent design fails miserably by all accounts to be considered an actual science. Put simply, it is a creationist belief deprived of its religious origins in order to appear nonsectarian to the scientific community. Nothing about intelligent design belongs in the realm of scientific fact, what's more it tries to deprive humanity of the reason that scientific thought has afforded us. This attack on evolution is nothing less than the final religious assault on the scientific method and the construct of logic that lies at its core. As previously mentioned, there is already a resolution to this particular debate as ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover that intelligent design cannot be taught in the classrooms of America (Memorandum). However, on a larger scale there can be no true resolution to this conflict of ideologies. Both science and faith are mutually compelled to destroy one another; the two realities are irreconcilable in their beliefs. Logic eventually destroys the existence of God by quantifying reality, while the systems of faith defy the reason that human knowledge is based upon by conferring all reality into the hands of an all powerful deity. At present, science continues to eat away at faith as humanity approaches absolute knowledge of his surroundings and (barring the appearance of an actual god or gods) we will be responsible for religion?s total extinguishment in the light of reason.
Dunkelberg, Pete. "Talkdesign.org: Critically Sxamining the "Intelligent Design" Movement." Irreducible Complexity Demystified. 26 April 2003. Talkdesign.org. 20 Oct 2008 <http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html>.
Freeman, Scott. Biological Science. Third. New York City: Benjamin Cummings, 2005.
"Memorandum Opinion." Final Dover Opinion. 20 Dec 2005. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 19 Oct 2008 <http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:kHN6hJ-ClGQJ:www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf+Case+4:04-cv-02688-JEJ+Document+342+Filed+12/20/2005&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us>.
"Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations." National Center for Science Education: Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools. 1995. The National Center for Science Education, Inc.. 19 Oct 2008 <http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp>.
Wein, Richard. "Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates:A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch." Not a Free Lunch. 23 April 2002. 19 Oct 2008 <http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#irred>.
Nothing has become so evocative of religion?s dying presence within modern society than the debate between evolution and intelligent design. The debate wages continuously between those who believe in the natural processes that create life and those who believe in a divine influence that creates life. With intelligent design?s lack of scientific relevance and ever dwindling number of proponents, it seems inevitable that this pillar of faith will be purged from humanity?s central perception of the universe in favor of the physical sciences.
This trend of ?intelligent design? was created shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that the teaching of creation science alongside evolution was in violation of the Establishment Clause. This ruling caused Phillip E. Johnson to advocate the redefinition of science in his book Darwin on Trial in order to allow processes of supernatural creation to be viewed as a legitimate field of study. Johnson, along with grass root support groups, aimed to annul the empirical nature of the scientific method and replace it with "theistic realism". In accord with the growing ?intelligent design? movement, eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, sued the Dover Area School District for an evolutionary statement that was required to be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes. The suit was tried from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 before Judge John E. Jones III. On December 20, 2005 Judge Jones issued his findings and ruled that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, banning the teaching of intelligent design in Pennsylvania's science classrooms.
The current evidence for evolution is practically indisputable and serves as the backbone of many scientific fields of study. Fossil records demonstrating decent with modification, microbial adaptations to environmental challenges, transitional forms, vestigial traits, genetic mutation and countless other indicators have become imperative to our understanding of biological functions. The core belief of the evolutionary process is held by basic four tenets; that individuals within a population are variable, this variation is heritable, in every generation some individuals are more successful at surviving and reproducing, and the individuals with the most favorable variations (who are better at surviving and reproducing) are selected to procreate (Freeman 490). Through these four laws, scientists are able to test if evolution occurs within any given population through the scientific method. Such tests have been conducted on a variety of organisms (mostly species with very high reproductive rates) and all resulting data has confirmed the processes of evolution as an active phenomenon within organic beings (Freeman 503-523). In populations with much slower reproductive rates, it is necessary to look at fossil records, comparative anatomy or Mendelian genetics to test if the evolutionary process applies. An overwhelming amount of evidence points toward evolution as the driving factor behind the creation of new species in all organisms regardless of reproductive rates or ?complexity?. No theory has ever been presented that matches the validity of evolution in the history of science. It is commonly held throughout out the scientific community as the most comprehensive explanatory system for understanding findings from paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, physiology, ecology, population genetics, and molecular genetics. Evolution is a field of science because it logically proves many of the answers science needs while adhering to the scientific method; something that intelligent design fails spectacularly at.
Arguments for intelligent design do not rely so much on proving the existence of a divine creator, but instead try to find holes in the evolutionary theory. Such tactics usually involve an attempt to demonstrate the complexity of animal systems or the theoretical ambiguity of the evolutionary processes. One such explanation known as irreducible complexity has gained prominence as one of the key approaches from the intelligent design movement, claiming that a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts would cease to function if any one of these parts were removed. Thereby these systems (such as an eye or any other organ system) could not operate unless they had been immediately assembled in a certain way. Specified complexity is another argument that tries to illustrate the complexity of life by arguing the mathematical improbability that unguided processes could lead to the intricate patterns of life. Proponents of intelligent design uphold the fact that this wide variety of complexities found in living organisms indicates the presence of a guiding factor in their formation, namely a centralized intelligence. Still, the most commonly held argument heard from the evolutionary opposition is the claim that the theory of evolution itself is under constant debate in scientific circles and that science as a whole is undecided about evolution. Many critics cite the theoretical nature of evolution and suggest that current experiments in evolution (such as those conducted on fruit flies and bacteria) serve as evidence of scientific uncertainty in determining its existence. In emphasizing these negative points against evolutionary theory, proponents of intelligent design seek to destabilize the conventional mode of scientific thought and reestablish the divine as a scientifically relevant function.
So the question remains, is intelligent design a viable scientific area of study? The answer is a resounding ?no? from every scientific field. The key foundation of all scientific thought can be attributed to two fundamental tenets: the observable axiom and naturalistic axiom. The observable axiom denotes man?s ability to accurately observe his surroundings and create laws to describe it. The naturalistic axiom maintains that every event that has ever happened, is happening or will happen can be quantified through math, chemistry, physics or biology. Science requires both axioms in order to function properly and any deviation from these laws would annul everything on which our universal perceptions are built. Intelligent design seeks to directly violate these foundations by introducing the supernatural as a viable cause for any physical event while simultaneously refusing to produce physical evidence in support of their claim. Not only does intelligent design fail to meet the most basic scientific standards, but both arguments for intelligent design and against evolution are decisively unfound.
The foremost argument employed by proponents of intelligent design is an outright attempt to slur the consensus of the scientific community. They argue that the theory of evolution is under constant debate within scientific circles and that science as a whole remains undecided about evolution. This claim could not be further from the truth as evolution was universally adopted by The National Center for Science Education and by extension over sixty scientific associations in 1995 (Statements). It is regarded as a cornerstone of modern science; a basic component of anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy and every other natural science. The principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to all scientific criteria. The only real debate between scientists involving evolution is in determining the exact processes that cause it, although natural selection is commonly believed.
Many of the so called "holes" in evolutionary theory are simply holes in the critics' understanding of science. Claims trumping the concepts of irreducible complexity or the specified complexity argument have been thoroughly explained and proven incorrect by multiple studies on evolutionary mechanics (Wein) (Dunkelberg). Many critics also make the mistake of pointing towards current experiments in evolutionary theory (such as those conducted on fruit flies and bacteria) as showing scientific uncertainty. Those who make this argument are oblivious to many of the experiments conducted on gravity and relativity today, almost 315 years after Newton presented his gravitational theory and nearly a century after Einstein first published his work on relativity. Both theories are continually tested to this day despite their prominence as scientific fact.
This same flaw applies to critics who are ignorant to the scientific usage of the word "theory" and claim that this definition shows that no conclusive proof has been determined. For example, both the concepts of gravity and relativity are both theories but their implications to reality are unquestionable. Gravity, special relativity and evolution are all classified as theoretical because they attempt to rationalize the world around us based on careful experimentation and examination of evidence. In science, facts are used to support theories as evidence, and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
At the same time, those who argue against evolution ignore the lack of evidence for their own positions. They cannot provide data to disprove evolution or prove their own ideas. Proponents say that any evidence pointing to the nature of an intelligent designer may not be directly observable as its effects on nature can not be perceived. Indeed, the intelligent design movement has not proposed any scientific means of testing its claims since its creation twenty years ago. No tests have been proposed to identify the alleged effects of a creator because this idea is an intrinsic principle of religious pseudo-science. This constant assumption contrasts violently with the true fields of science, as any hypothesis or theory remains subject to possible rejection or modification in response to new knowledge. Religion, however, will always remain unchanging in the belief of an all powerful god in spite of any evidence presented to the contrary.
Intelligent design fails miserably by all accounts to be considered an actual science. Put simply, it is a creationist belief deprived of its religious origins in order to appear nonsectarian to the scientific community. Nothing about intelligent design belongs in the realm of scientific fact, what's more it tries to deprive humanity of the reason that scientific thought has afforded us. This attack on evolution is nothing less than the final religious assault on the scientific method and the construct of logic that lies at its core. As previously mentioned, there is already a resolution to this particular debate as ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover that intelligent design cannot be taught in the classrooms of America (Memorandum). However, on a larger scale there can be no true resolution to this conflict of ideologies. Both science and faith are mutually compelled to destroy one another; the two realities are irreconcilable in their beliefs. Logic eventually destroys the existence of God by quantifying reality, while the systems of faith defy the reason that human knowledge is based upon by conferring all reality into the hands of an all powerful deity. At present, science continues to eat away at faith as humanity approaches absolute knowledge of his surroundings and (barring the appearance of an actual god or gods) we will be responsible for religion?s total extinguishment in the light of reason.
Dunkelberg, Pete. "Talkdesign.org: Critically Sxamining the "Intelligent Design" Movement." Irreducible Complexity Demystified. 26 April 2003. Talkdesign.org. 20 Oct 2008 <http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html>.
Freeman, Scott. Biological Science. Third. New York City: Benjamin Cummings, 2005.
"Memorandum Opinion." Final Dover Opinion. 20 Dec 2005. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 19 Oct 2008 <http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:kHN6hJ-ClGQJ:www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf+Case+4:04-cv-02688-JEJ+Document+342+Filed+12/20/2005&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us>.
"Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations." National Center for Science Education: Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools. 1995. The National Center for Science Education, Inc.. 19 Oct 2008 <http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp>.
Wein, Richard. "Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates:A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch." Not a Free Lunch. 23 April 2002. 19 Oct 2008 <http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#irred>.
That is incorrect, it is called the "theory" of evolution because in terms of science (excluding physics), a theory is the highest status an explanation can attain, people often misunderstand the title of "theory" and think it means "hypothesis", but yes it is fact.Glefistus said: