|
Religion threads are banned on TL. Further derailment will be met with immediate permanent bans. |
On June 13 2011 02:06 Fahrenheit14 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure. If you're going to be technical about it, no scientific theory can be proven "100%". The only field where you can talk about definite "proof" is mathematics. Even the fact that the Earth orbits the sun cannot be scientifically "proven" 100%, but no one in their right mind would dispute it. Also, when scientists talk about a theory, they don't mean it in the sense that it is used in common language. They use it to mean a collection of ideas and statements, backed up with hard evidence, which exists to explain how the natural world operates. The difference betwen the "theory" of creation and evolution is that evolution has mounds of supporting evidence including fossil records, DNA, gene sequencing...etc. Creation has one book written by humans thousands of years ago, with no knowledge of science or scientific methods. Simply it's no contest, and to everyone outside the USA, it seems laughable that this debate is even happening. I truly feel sorry for the rational, intelligent people of the USA who have to put up with this nonsense.
Well you are right the only field when you can 100% prove a theory is the mathematics field. In other sciences, a theory cannot be proven 100% but it's a consensus between all the best scientist of the era, and the scientists can be wrong sometimes. I can give you an example, before the Einstein theory, every scientists was believing in the "Aether" and they were wrong. A Theory in Physic, Chemistry, Biology is just the best explanation we have at a moment, we don't know if some genius will come and give a better Theory (Explanation) more general or completely different from the previous one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
|
On June 13 2011 01:59 Samhax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 01:57 crms wrote:On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure. i get the feeling you don't understand how the word 'theory' is used in scientific discourse, no offense. I actually have a science background, so i know exactly how the word "theory" is used.
I ask again, what is the evidence behind intelligent design (I'm going to stop using that phrase, let's call a horse a horse and call it creationism) is there? A theory in order to be substantiated needs evidence. There is none for creationism. At all.
On June 13 2011 02:16 iNcontroL wrote:
Please try and resist the urge to start judging people for their religious beliefs and derail this thread. It's the height of petty behavior to take an answer given on a nationally broadcasted stage and run wild with it (on what to teach in schools).
If she just says "no, god doesn't exist and schools should only teach scientific theories" she is removed / news articles / blah blah blah.
and if she answers the way she did a lone thread on a gaming website has a bunch of super scientists get upset for a bit until enough people ask them to calm down. I think she choose wisely. Believe it or not there are good people who believe in God and entertain the idea of intelligent design.. rather than be a dick about it every chance you get sometimes you can try and be the "bigger man" and just say "well I disagree but ok!"
I'm not judging anyone, i stated in a very polite manner (not used any offensive language at all) why this has stopped me being able to vote for her and clearly (it seems mostly non americans though that is purely anecdotal) agree.
A lot of believers don't believe in intelligent design, the catholic church at one point offered to make it dogma that the universe was created in the big bang, hence their own story of creation is taken to be a parable.
"A bunch of super scientists" is you trolling i assume, any thinking adult can reason that creationism is false the evidence is all there. But we're not talking about thinking aduklts, we're talking about children who do not yet know how to reason properly, what is more important than educating our children so they can have the best future? In my opinion; nothing.
This isn't an attack on religion, this is an attack on creationism and you equating the two is wholly disingenuous.
|
a theory is an idea that seems to be true, and the overwelming body of evidence suggests is true.
a hypothesis is an idea which you are just throwing out there because its sounds good to you.
i really hate it when people get these mixed up
gravity is a theory
god is a hypothesis
On June 13 2011 02:16 iNcontroL wrote:
Please try and resist the urge to start judging people for their religious beliefs and derail this thread. It's the height of petty behavior to take an answer given on a nationally broadcasted stage and run wild with it (on what to teach in schools).
If she just says "no, god doesn't exist and schools should only teach scientific theories" she is removed / news articles / blah blah blah.
and if she answers the way she did a lone thread on a gaming website has a bunch of super scientists get upset for a bit until enough people ask them to calm down. I think she choose wisely. Believe it or not there are good people who believe in God and entertain the idea of intelligent design.. rather than be a dick about it every chance you get sometimes you can try and be the "bigger man" and just say "well I disagree but ok!"
but its not ok  its really, really, not ok. thats the problem. people keep giving too much credit to religion for no reason. even when we are so quick to denounce facism and terrorism. religion has caused immesurable pain in the world, from the halting of scientific progress, to the denouncement of condoms in africa, the list goes on. the longer we just forgive and forget what religion has and is doing to society the worse we are for it.
i know this isnt the place for it, people should just drop it. but i think its a bit rich to ask people to vote for her 'just because shes part of your community' when she is happy to either pander to idiots or has vastly contrasting views to our (my) own.
|
On June 13 2011 02:24 Samhax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 02:06 Fahrenheit14 wrote:On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure. If you're going to be technical about it, no scientific theory can be proven "100%". The only field where you can talk about definite "proof" is mathematics. Even the fact that the Earth orbits the sun cannot be scientifically "proven" 100%, but no one in their right mind would dispute it. Also, when scientists talk about a theory, they don't mean it in the sense that it is used in common language. They use it to mean a collection of ideas and statements, backed up with hard evidence, which exists to explain how the natural world operates. The difference betwen the "theory" of creation and evolution is that evolution has mounds of supporting evidence including fossil records, DNA, gene sequencing...etc. Creation has one book written by humans thousands of years ago, with no knowledge of science or scientific methods. Simply it's no contest, and to everyone outside the USA, it seems laughable that this debate is even happening. I truly feel sorry for the rational, intelligent people of the USA who have to put up with this nonsense. Well you are right the only field when you can 100% prove a theory is the mathematics field. In other sciences, a theory cannot be proven 100% but it's a consensus between all the best scientist of the era, and the scientists can be wrong sometimes. I can give you an example, before the Einstein theory, every scientists was believing in the "Aether" and they were wrong. A Theory in Physic, Chemistry, Biology is just the best explanation we have at a this moment, we don't know if some genius will come and give a better Theory (Explanation) more general or completely different from the previous one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
Yes I agree that someone may come along with a better explanation than evolution, although it is highly unlikely, and I would welcome that breakthrough immensely. It is clear however that creationism is not what we are talking about here. A new theory would have to have just as much, if not more evidence supporting it than the current theory.
Einstein's theories were at first ignored by the majority of the scientific community, until experiments were conducted which supported his claims. Creationism obviously has zero supporting evidence and will never have any.
While I would love for a genius to revolutionise the world of Biology with a new theory of evolution, creationism simply doesn't do the job.
|
On June 13 2011 02:30 hicks91 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 01:59 Samhax wrote:On June 13 2011 01:57 crms wrote:On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure. i get the feeling you don't understand how the word 'theory' is used in scientific discourse, no offense. I actually have a science background, so i know exactly how the word "theory" is used. I ask again, what is the evidence behind intelligent design (I'm going to stop using that phrase, let's call a horse a horse and call it creationism) is there? A theory in order to be substantiated needs evidence. There is none for creationism. At all. Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 02:16 iNcontroL wrote:
Please try and resist the urge to start judging people for their religious beliefs and derail this thread. It's the height of petty behavior to take an answer given on a nationally broadcasted stage and run wild with it (on what to teach in schools).
If she just says "no, god doesn't exist and schools should only teach scientific theories" she is removed / news articles / blah blah blah.
and if she answers the way she did a lone thread on a gaming website has a bunch of super scientists get upset for a bit until enough people ask them to calm down. I think she choose wisely. Believe it or not there are good people who believe in God and entertain the idea of intelligent design.. rather than be a dick about it every chance you get sometimes you can try and be the "bigger man" and just say "well I disagree but ok!" I'm not judging anyone, i stated in a very polite manner (not used any offensive language at all) why this has stopped me being able to vote for her and clearly (it seems mostly non americans though that is purely anecdotal) agree. A lot of believers don't believe in intelligent design, the catholic church at one point offered to make it dogma that the universe was created in the big bang, hence their own story of creation is taken to be a parable. "A bunch of super scientists" is you trolling i assume, any thinking adult can reason that creationism is false the evidence is all there. But we're not talking about thinking aduklts, we're talking about children who do not yet know how to reason properly, what is more important than educating our children so they can have the best future? In my opinion; nothing. This isn't an attack on religion, this is an attack on creationism and you equating the two is wholly disingenuous.
i'm not defendig Intelligent design (i actually believe that Darwin's Theory is the best explanation we have at this moment) but i'm just saying don't be blind by your own belief because Darwin still a Theory and we can't say it's 100% accurate. So giving that, being condescendant with her is quite ignorant because if you think Darwin is 100% the truth you are not better than her.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
please take it to PM's guys... seriously. Every religious debate on TL always goes the same way. It'd be a true sign of evolutionary beliefs if you would stop.. otherwise I am forced to think this is a satire put on by bible thumpers.
|
Posted before I could see incontrol said to stop sorry. Took a while to write! I'm done though. If someone wants to respond, feel free to PM =)
On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure.
Currently, the theory of evolution has a ridiculous amount of "evidence" supporting it. It's not called proof because biologists are rigorous. In science they try not to use the word "proof" in stupid ways... The evidence strongly, strongly suggests that evolution did/does occur - people who say otherwise haven't taken the the time to really look into it, or have religious reasons to rule it out completely.
There are no good arguments, none at all, to completely rule out evolution. Its foundations are extremely solid as they originate from many fields of science. However, there are good arguments that cause doubt about parts of it - specific explanations of certain phenomenons are obviously imperfect. Some explanations for details are merely speculation because life on Earth has been going on for a long time (not 6000 years - although I'm sure very few of you guys believe that).
Biologists, those who have dedicated years studying the field, are the ones who bring up most of those questions and try to answer them. Uneducated people usually bring up arguments based in complete ignorance of science: the one thing that basically tripled our life expectancy and brought us all kinds of shiny things. People need to avoid the idea that "I don't understand it therefore it can't happen".
I haven't read the thread but there might be people who have said "we've never observed a dog become a non-dog so evolution doesn't happen". Fact is, if we had seen a dog become a non-dog, that would mean something's extremely wrong with the theory. People have awful misconception of the theory. For instance the idea of "transitional species" is really a mess in the mind of simpletons. Let me explain in the spoiler!
+ Show Spoiler +Evolution is small changes (mutations) over time. To make it simple, let's say you draw something and photocopy it, and then photocopy the copy, etc. After a billion times, obviously the result will be NOTHING like the first drawing. Where are the transitional species though? If you take the 500 millionth copy, it's very different from the first and the last one, but it's not a transitional specie: look at the 499,999,999th and the 500,000,001st, they look alike!
Obviously, to keep the analogy going, I'd need to bring up natural selection and some of those copies would be unable to breed and some would die off, etc. But the principle is the same.
As for the whole BS with the semantics of the word "theory", look into germ theory and tell me if you still don't understand what a "scientific theory" is. In science, a theory is not an educated guess.
Also, let's say intelligent design is right (and it's basically creationism under a fancy name), then everything has actively been made to LOOK like evolution occurred.
Last thing: "believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct" -- I just want to say that calling it "Darwin's theory" is a bit weird because our understanding of it is miles ahead of what it was 130 years ago. But you're right - the theory isn't 100% right, and never will be. The origin of species was published in 1859 and the scientific method is still in its infancy - obviously we can't have all the info on millions and millions of years.
|
On June 13 2011 02:37 Samhax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 02:30 hicks91 wrote:On June 13 2011 01:59 Samhax wrote:On June 13 2011 01:57 crms wrote:On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure. i get the feeling you don't understand how the word 'theory' is used in scientific discourse, no offense. I actually have a science background, so i know exactly how the word "theory" is used. I ask again, what is the evidence behind intelligent design (I'm going to stop using that phrase, let's call a horse a horse and call it creationism) is there? A theory in order to be substantiated needs evidence. There is none for creationism. At all. On June 13 2011 02:16 iNcontroL wrote:
Please try and resist the urge to start judging people for their religious beliefs and derail this thread. It's the height of petty behavior to take an answer given on a nationally broadcasted stage and run wild with it (on what to teach in schools).
If she just says "no, god doesn't exist and schools should only teach scientific theories" she is removed / news articles / blah blah blah.
and if she answers the way she did a lone thread on a gaming website has a bunch of super scientists get upset for a bit until enough people ask them to calm down. I think she choose wisely. Believe it or not there are good people who believe in God and entertain the idea of intelligent design.. rather than be a dick about it every chance you get sometimes you can try and be the "bigger man" and just say "well I disagree but ok!" I'm not judging anyone, i stated in a very polite manner (not used any offensive language at all) why this has stopped me being able to vote for her and clearly (it seems mostly non americans though that is purely anecdotal) agree. A lot of believers don't believe in intelligent design, the catholic church at one point offered to make it dogma that the universe was created in the big bang, hence their own story of creation is taken to be a parable. "A bunch of super scientists" is you trolling i assume, any thinking adult can reason that creationism is false the evidence is all there. But we're not talking about thinking aduklts, we're talking about children who do not yet know how to reason properly, what is more important than educating our children so they can have the best future? In my opinion; nothing. This isn't an attack on religion, this is an attack on creationism and you equating the two is wholly disingenuous. i'm not defendig Intelligent design (i actually believe that Darwin's Theory is the best explanation we have at this moment) but i'm just saying don't be blind by your own belief because Darwin still a Theory and we can't say it's 100% accurate. So giving that, being condescendant with her is quite ignorant because if you think Darwin is 100% the truth you are not better than her.
This isn't a case of darwin vs other, there are gaping holes in his theory that i recognise and so does the body scientific. This is a case of teaching one very specific thing, creationism, alongside things that have reams of evidence. I ask to anyone once again what is the evidence for creationism?
God says so is the only reply, and well if you think that you may as well go live in a cave because God said let there be light not maxwell.
There is no creationism debate; it's over.
|
Creationism is a genius theory, with only the minor hurdles of incorporating nuclear physics, modern cosmology, geology, Palaeontology, archaeology and botony into it's midst. [/sarcasm]
If you want specifics on why creationism is an increasingly controversial outlook on life, then go and read the wiki article I will so generously provide to you all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
Look for the section on "Growing evidence for evolution", and remember, wikipedia is an unbiased, objective encyclopedia.
I find such beliefs very dangerous at best, not only because they run contrary to our every day experiences, but because it encourages people to flatly deny any evidence to the contrary.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Incontrol can't win an argument or justify these ridiculous beliefs so says don't do it where other people can see.
ermmmmm ok
|
On June 13 2011 02:37 Samhax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 02:30 hicks91 wrote:On June 13 2011 01:59 Samhax wrote:On June 13 2011 01:57 crms wrote:On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure. i get the feeling you don't understand how the word 'theory' is used in scientific discourse, no offense. I actually have a science background, so i know exactly how the word "theory" is used. I ask again, what is the evidence behind intelligent design (I'm going to stop using that phrase, let's call a horse a horse and call it creationism) is there? A theory in order to be substantiated needs evidence. There is none for creationism. At all. On June 13 2011 02:16 iNcontroL wrote:
Please try and resist the urge to start judging people for their religious beliefs and derail this thread. It's the height of petty behavior to take an answer given on a nationally broadcasted stage and run wild with it (on what to teach in schools).
If she just says "no, god doesn't exist and schools should only teach scientific theories" she is removed / news articles / blah blah blah.
and if she answers the way she did a lone thread on a gaming website has a bunch of super scientists get upset for a bit until enough people ask them to calm down. I think she choose wisely. Believe it or not there are good people who believe in God and entertain the idea of intelligent design.. rather than be a dick about it every chance you get sometimes you can try and be the "bigger man" and just say "well I disagree but ok!" I'm not judging anyone, i stated in a very polite manner (not used any offensive language at all) why this has stopped me being able to vote for her and clearly (it seems mostly non americans though that is purely anecdotal) agree. A lot of believers don't believe in intelligent design, the catholic church at one point offered to make it dogma that the universe was created in the big bang, hence their own story of creation is taken to be a parable. "A bunch of super scientists" is you trolling i assume, any thinking adult can reason that creationism is false the evidence is all there. But we're not talking about thinking aduklts, we're talking about children who do not yet know how to reason properly, what is more important than educating our children so they can have the best future? In my opinion; nothing. This isn't an attack on religion, this is an attack on creationism and you equating the two is wholly disingenuous. i'm not defendig Intelligent design (i actually believe that Darwin's Theory is the best explanation we have at this moment) but i'm just saying don't be blind by your own belief because Darwin still a Theory and we can't say it's 100% accurate. So giving that, being condescendant with her is quite ignorant because if you think Darwin is 100% the truth you are not better than her.
Of course darwin's theory is not 100% accurate. It's completely outdated and worthless. It's funny to read people say that "its just a theory, perhaps a good approach" when it is close to be complete bullshit.
The difference between Darwin's and the creationism theories is that one is no more than "a wizard made it" and the other has lead to much more powerful modern theories that are a fact, wether people like them or not. Thats why every kid should know of Darwin.
edit @adam9172: genetic drift according to Darwin, you can't explain that, as someone would say.
|
Saying Darwin's theory is outdated and worthless, despite a) It being the foundation of modern biology and b) not providing a shard of evidence to demonstrate? Really? Are you going to be that guy?
EDIT - your little outburst reminded me of an entertaining NewScientist magazine I read of a few years back - the front cover stated "WAS DARWIN WRONG ALL ALONG?" - clearly just typed up to attract more readers and hence sell more copies. When you opened up to page 3, you saw in equally large letters "NO.".
|
English in not my native language, so i can't express myself like i want. I give up.
anyway go Anna!
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
pleaseeeeeeee stopppppppppppp
|
If you expect votes from us, you have to be ready to face criticisms on thing you run on. Surely this is a pretty simple idea to grasp?
Nearly a simple as creationism?
|
On June 13 2011 02:50 Adam9172 wrote:
your little outburst reminded me of an entertaining NewScientist magazine I read of a few years back - the front cover stated "WAS DARWIN WRONG ALL ALONG?" - clearly just typed up to attract more readers and hence sell more copies. When you opened up to page 3, you saw in equally large letters "NO.".
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I hope Anna does not win, not because of her answer, but because I don't see the point in winning something that can ask this kind of questions... It seems so strange.
|
Anyway, I've had my fill of religious debate for today. When do we actually find out if Anna made it through the voting round?
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On June 13 2011 02:59 Fahrenheit14 wrote:
Anyway, I've had my fill of religious debate for today. When do we actually find out if Anna made it through the voting round?
After weds coming up
<3 for votes btw
|
<3 to Arkuray :D
Don't get me wrong here sir, we're not trying to start a flame war or anything. We're aware that the thread has been derailed by less than desirable elements and wish to get it back on track. We merely ask that people explain, in one way or another, why creationism should be taken seriously, despite overwhelming evidence to it. 
A question for you sir - do you believe in it? If so, why?
Finally, not being a citizen of the US, I'm not going to vote in this, though if I could, I'd say Ms Washington would have my votes  But each to their own, right?! :D It's the smile...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6tQ0c.jpg)
