Poll: Controversial Topics
- Thread starter JuTheTo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just to clarify:liquidsolid said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Only one of the two qualify as a scientific theory and the other one is nothing but make believe and pointing to the sky and yelling "GOD DID IT!" (or Intelligent Designer, which is just a clever way of teaching it in schools without using the word god).
No, they are not both theories. It's not a theory unless you apply the scientific method. ID is a suggestion, at best. Calling ID a theory is lending it scientific credibility it is not deserving of in any way. Which is exactly what people pushing this suggestion are trying to do.liquidsolid said:
I read an ID theory about "complex and specified information". The hypothesis is based on the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information. ID theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed it would contain a high level of complex and specified information. (Where you and I would disagree with the scientists) The experiments involve testing natural objects to determine if they contain the complex and specified information, such as irreducible complexity. Thats a fancy way of saying "do they need all parts to function?" which is tested by reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they do need all the parts. When the scientists find this specified and complex information, they reach the conclusion that the structures were designed.fenrizz said:
Personally I find evolutionary theory more appealing that intelligent design, but I do think they are both theories. Now your argument seems to be based on the fact that you don't want it to be taught in schools, I completely agree. Religion should be a private matter and if you want to believe in it you can do so privately instead of forcing it on everyone else.
Basically just read up there^^, thats why I think it can be described as a theory despite disagreeing with the theory.poleboy said:
In summation: You guys made me argue about this more x.x against my own side no less. Congratulations you made me laugh.
Sorry, but evolution/the fossil records never actually makes that claim. Humans and modern apes have a common ancestor. And there is proof. Lots of it.rogue_salty said:
OP: Wow, this thread comes up a lot...
The following is a list of ways that different Christians interpret the creation account(s) in Genesis without embracing young-Earth creationism. It's very much an off-the-cuff effort -- improvements and corrections are welcome.
1) Day-age. The days of Genesis are each periods of indefinite length.
2) Gap. There is a gap of a few billion years between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2.
These are both "conservative" approaches that preserve the inerrancy of the Bible. They were quite popular among fundamentalists until the Flood geology/young-earth movement drove them out two or three decades ago. They make more of an attempt to come to terms with the physical evidence than does Flood geology, but neither really addresses the discrepancies. That is, they allow for an old earth, but even so the Genesis account still doesn't fit the physical record at all well. They also take, to my mind, a peculiar attitude towards the text: it's literally true and an accurate record of the history of life, but written in a kind of code that made it incomprehensible for most of its history (i.e., no one reading Genesis without a knowledge of geology would come away with the idea that the Earth is billions of years old).
3) Allegory. The creation account is an allegory; its message is the spiritual truth contained in the allegory. This is a very old position in Christian interpretation, although until the conflict with science developed the account was usually (but not always) thought to be true both literally and allegorically. As is often the case with allegories, the precise meaning that's supposed to be conveyed varies with the reader. This approach is also consistent with an inerrant Bible, but not with a fundamentalist style of literalism. More recent variations would make the account a metaphorical or a mythic representation of spiritual truths.
4) Reworked myth. The creation account is a Mesopotamian creation myth that has been carefully reworked to express theological truths (monotheism, supremacy of Israel's God over the forces of nature, etc.). The myth is simply the medium through which these truths are conveyed.
5) Theology uber alles. The question of the historical truth of the account is of no importance whatsoever. All that matters is the theological truths it contains. A different formulation would be that the Bible should only be expected to be reliable in matters of theological importance; it's not intended to be a science or history textbook, and hence need not be entirely accurate in those areas.
6) Fallible human product. Like the rest of the Bible, the Genesis account is not God's word, but a record of and reflections on a particular people's encounter with God. There's no reason to expect it not to contain errors, especially in matters that were outside the knowledge of the authors.
Some of the above approaches are inconsistent with each other, and some are not. I see that I've only commented on the validity of the first two, probably because I find them to require strained readings even on their own terms. Obviously, those who hold such beliefs don't agree with me, so don't take my word for it.
1) Day-age. The days of Genesis are each periods of indefinite length.
2) Gap. There is a gap of a few billion years between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2.
These are both "conservative" approaches that preserve the inerrancy of the Bible. They were quite popular among fundamentalists until the Flood geology/young-earth movement drove them out two or three decades ago. They make more of an attempt to come to terms with the physical evidence than does Flood geology, but neither really addresses the discrepancies. That is, they allow for an old earth, but even so the Genesis account still doesn't fit the physical record at all well. They also take, to my mind, a peculiar attitude towards the text: it's literally true and an accurate record of the history of life, but written in a kind of code that made it incomprehensible for most of its history (i.e., no one reading Genesis without a knowledge of geology would come away with the idea that the Earth is billions of years old).
3) Allegory. The creation account is an allegory; its message is the spiritual truth contained in the allegory. This is a very old position in Christian interpretation, although until the conflict with science developed the account was usually (but not always) thought to be true both literally and allegorically. As is often the case with allegories, the precise meaning that's supposed to be conveyed varies with the reader. This approach is also consistent with an inerrant Bible, but not with a fundamentalist style of literalism. More recent variations would make the account a metaphorical or a mythic representation of spiritual truths.
4) Reworked myth. The creation account is a Mesopotamian creation myth that has been carefully reworked to express theological truths (monotheism, supremacy of Israel's God over the forces of nature, etc.). The myth is simply the medium through which these truths are conveyed.
5) Theology uber alles. The question of the historical truth of the account is of no importance whatsoever. All that matters is the theological truths it contains. A different formulation would be that the Bible should only be expected to be reliable in matters of theological importance; it's not intended to be a science or history textbook, and hence need not be entirely accurate in those areas.
6) Fallible human product. Like the rest of the Bible, the Genesis account is not God's word, but a record of and reflections on a particular people's encounter with God. There's no reason to expect it not to contain errors, especially in matters that were outside the knowledge of the authors.
Some of the above approaches are inconsistent with each other, and some are not. I see that I've only commented on the validity of the first two, probably because I find them to require strained readings even on their own terms. Obviously, those who hold such beliefs don't agree with me, so don't take my word for it.
I'm a mix of 3 through six.
If intelligent design is true then God is pants on head retarded. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of physiology will realize this.
arguing with people on the internet is like participating in the special olympics. even when you win, you are still a retard.
Points for trying, but this is still incredibly bad research.
First of all, what is complex and specified information (CSI)? What are the requirements for any old information to be complex and specified enough to be CSI? How does that relate to biology?
Second, correlation does not imply causation.
Just because something is an intelligent agent (not sure what this term implies btw), it doesn't necessarily mean that it produces CSI.
Third, these researchers already know what they intend to find and are going to manipulate the data to fit the hypothesis they want. This is the complete opposite to how science works. Proper science makes a hypothesis, then runs experiments. If the data does not fit the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong.
Fourth, irreducible complexity has been disproved by the scientific community, making any research using this dogma utterly worthless.
Mordin would be dissapointed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagellagummibear76 said:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/58
The egg question is irrelevant.
The mousetrap makes a decent tie clip by removing a couple of parts.
So if a species were to "re-adapt" you would accept evolution?gummibear76 said:
Let me google that for you! [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=reverse+evolution]
There are two major reasons why ID is not scientific.Zarkov said:
1. It is unfalsifiable. There needs to be something that, if found, will mean it is false, e.g. evolution is falsifiable since if a creature is discovered with an irreducible trait, evolution can be considered false. This is necessary to trim the silly, inconsequential junk e.g. unicorns, leprechorns, Russel's teapot [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot].
2. There is no evidence. There has been no observable instance of intelligent design, no any clear definition of what would constitute intelligent design. Currently, the people behind ID claim irreducible complexity is all that is needed to prove ID, however that is wrong; it only disproves evolution. We could have random design or even unintelligent design. Neil's talk "Stupid Design" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ] gives a strong case that even if evolution weren't true, there is evidence against us being designed intelligently.
From the one link off that page I checked, (it was an example of an armored fish that "de-evolved") all I could gather, was that natural selection was again at work. Example: Fish is being eaten by predators, so the fish without the armor gene start to die off. Majority of fish become armored. Note: MAJORITY. Later on, when the lake becomes dirtier, fish with the armor start to die because the extra weight would make them slower. (I agree, that there is a slight flaw in my example, due to the huge amount of random things that can happen. Some creatures that are "less adapted" may survive, just purely out of luck) so the majority of the armored fish die. later on, when the lake is cleaner, the small majority of armored fish start to repopulate, and gain ground in terms of population size, on the more vulnerable fish.10BIT said:
Problem: suppose you took the bar and used it to make a tie clip. Then you add the spring to it, and it suddenly becomes too heavy on one side and falls out.Zetion said:
Or you add the wooden base to it, and it again becomes too heavy and falls out
Or perhaps you attach the spring to the wooden board, but what purpose does the spring give to the wooden board? It would just make it heavier untill the rest of the parts fell into place.
... why do I have the sneaking suspicion that you are just linking articles with a headline that supports your ideals without actually reading them?RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Regardless:
1) It seems to me that they only discovered a "less adapted" species of angler fish, one that still had all the parts needed to function. This does not prove it is not irreducibly complex. Find a link between the angler fish, and a prehistoric bacterium and I may believe you. (Fat chance)
2)so basically you say its an evolved cilium? Well, there is a small problem with that: as the cilium evolves, it would become a burden on the organism. It would become thicker and longer, but without the motor system to be able to move it, it would greatly hinder the organism. it would be like having an extra arm hanging in front of you that you couldn't move.
3) Oh, but it is. The chicken eggs required a protien produced by (yes, you guessed it.) a fully functional and developed chicken. Therefore, chickens could not have evolved from an older species, since if the chicken, dinosaur combo existed, it would lack the necessary protien to carry on the chicken evolution.
4)but if you add a spring, or the wooden board to the "tie clip" it becomes too heavey and falls out. thus making it useless.
Wow, this is fun! Keep the questions coming guys, I'm not done yet!
(Although I do have school tomorrow...)
(Although I do have school tomorrow...)
I find that typically, anyone debating from the point of view of a deity existing is generally standing on pretty thin ice. I just can't take people seriously when they believe in something so infantile.
Anyway, you want interesting things about other controversial topics: something I hear from pro-lifers a lot is that the heart starts beating/pumping blood in the foetus at a few into a pregnancy. They always so as if its a hugely enlightening point and one that should instantly make me anti-abortion, but... so?
If it was the liver that started working at that point in the pregnancy and not the heart you wouldn't give a shit; the heart is just an organ, your romanticised views of it don't mean anything, and they certainly don't add weight to your argument.
Anyway, you want interesting things about other controversial topics: something I hear from pro-lifers a lot is that the heart starts beating/pumping blood in the foetus at a few into a pregnancy. They always so as if its a hugely enlightening point and one that should instantly make me anti-abortion, but... so?
If it was the liver that started working at that point in the pregnancy and not the heart you wouldn't give a shit; the heart is just an organ, your romanticised views of it don't mean anything, and they certainly don't add weight to your argument.