Welcome to Gaia! ::

Select poll option that suits you most closely:

I am with Ben Stein who is a genius. 0.12738853503185 12.7% [ 40 ]
I am with Dawkins who is brilliant! 0.28343949044586 28.3% [ 89 ]
Darwinism is a foggy working hypothesis. 0.063694267515924 6.4% [ 20 ]
There is no academic freedom anymore. 0.14649681528662 14.6% [ 46 ]
I evolved from a cluster of cells that emerged from a pokey-ball. 0.37898089171975 37.9% [ 119 ]
Total Votes:[ 314 ]
<< < 1 2 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 56 57 58 > >>
ElectricTerra
Aloha Loi Helena
vipr230
ElectricTerra
Iguana - I'm actually finding the video of Miller to be pretty amusing and interesting. ^.^ He's charming.


Miller's awesome, and is one of the biggest names in anti-creationism, yet he's catholic so apparently creationists don't like talking about him, he ruins their false dichotomy.
I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church takes no stand against Evolution. I have never been taught that evolution was false either by my schooling, my mother or my church leaders.
Is this Noora? Or Noora's daughter?
Same thing.
ElectricTerra
Aloha Loi Helena
vipr230
ElectricTerra
Iguana - I'm actually finding the video of Miller to be pretty amusing and interesting. ^.^ He's charming.


Miller's awesome, and is one of the biggest names in anti-creationism, yet he's catholic so apparently creationists don't like talking about him, he ruins their false dichotomy.
I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church takes no stand against Evolution. I have never been taught that evolution was false either by my schooling, my mother or my church leaders.
Is this Noora? Or Noora's daughter?
Your post is off topic. If you have personal questions you wish to seek information for please PM the person. Otherwise your post is spam, no offense. The topic here is the film Expelled. We are currently discussing whether ID is science or supernaturalism. My relationship to anyone on Gaia is irrelevant to the content of my posts. Please do not be offended, but there are too many people speculating about "Noora" in the midst of discussions and that id not helpful to the discussion/dialogue/debate itself.
Aloha Loi Helena
ElectricTerra
Aloha Loi Helena
vipr230
ElectricTerra
Iguana - I'm actually finding the video of Miller to be pretty amusing and interesting. ^.^ He's charming.


Miller's awesome, and is one of the biggest names in anti-creationism, yet he's catholic so apparently creationists don't like talking about him, he ruins their false dichotomy.
I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church takes no stand against Evolution. I have never been taught that evolution was false either by my schooling, my mother or my church leaders.
Is this Noora? Or Noora's daughter?
Your post is off topic. If you have personal questions you wish to seek information for please PM the person. Otherwise your post is spam, no offense. The topic here is the film Expelled. We are currently discussing whether ID is science or supernaturalism. My relationship to anyone on Gaia is irrelevant to the content of my posts. Please do not be offended, but there are too many people speculating about "Noora" in the midst of discussions and that id not helpful to the discussion/dialogue/debate itself.


It should be fairly clear however that it's not, any call for a testable falsifiable hypothesis to be provided in favor of ID has been met with, well, nothing. There's little to debate here simply because ID isn't science, it's in every way creationism relabeled.
By looking up those old videos I found this new one, which explains the scientific theory and if applied to the idea of ID explains why it cannot be accepted as scientific.

The Scientific Method Made Easy 9 minutes and 55 seconds long
A Confused Iguana
Aloha Loi Helena
vipr230
ElectricTerra
Iguana - I'm actually finding the video of Miller to be pretty amusing and interesting. ^.^ He's charming.


Miller's awesome, and is one of the biggest names in anti-creationism, yet he's catholic so apparently creationists don't like talking about him, he ruins their false dichotomy.
I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church takes no stand against Evolution. I have never been taught that evolution was false either by my schooling, my mother or my church leaders.
No one claims this. Though, I should pick my words with care. The late John Paul II — apologies if it were earlier — stated that the evolution of the body was not in contraction with the teachings of the Church. Since Benedict XVI was appointed there has been a worrying shift in tone which lead to Professors Ken Miller, Laurence Krauss and Francisco Ayala writing an open letter to the pontiff. Again, apologies if this has been given a response but I am not aware of it. I hope the situation does not change from the position that John Paul II held.

The supposed incompatibility of religion and science is depressing given the history of thought and how many thinkers sought natural explanations as a way to expose the glory and majestic of their creator. Examining the history of Intelligent Design reveals that it is a vehicle designed to undermine the principles that makes science as successful as it is. I find it worrying that so many theists want to champion Intelligent Design when it amounts to no more than "God of the Gaps" thinking. "God of the Gaps" theology is weak and uninspiring; it only leaves itself open to being useless in the future: the gaps in human understanding will surely get smaller, making the need for the theology less and less. No, glorifying any designer in this fashion is prone to unravel. Surely the better approach would be to credit the designer with constructing the order and functioning of the universe in such a way so that life and the appearance of design springs out naturally. That strikes me as a far more sophisticated and complicated task.

The trend toward ID seems like bad science — well, non-science — and bad theology.


I agree. I am sure Papa Bene will do no such foolish thing regarding ID if it does not seek naturalistic explanations. I am not yet sure how naturalism and self design programmed into life itself could not be compatible. But this is why I turn to you for information. I have learned something new today. Thanks for the link to Miller and I will pay attention to every single one of your posts. As always. wink
Azazen
By looking up those old videos I found this new one, which explains the scientific theory and if applied to the idea of ID explains why it cannot be accepted as scientific.

The Scientific Method Made Easy 9 minutes and 55 seconds long
Thank you for this link, too Azazen! I will see if I can compute this in my wee little head!
blaugh I think I understand the scientific method as I have been studying what it means since kindergarten. I also don't have enough information on ID's plan, if any, to create an hypothesis that can be falsifiable. This is very fascinating. Really, it is good to raise these issue otherwise few people would really consider these subjects at all!

Thank you for your polite explanations and the informative links. wink
aisebon
BlueCollarJoe
rstrous
The movie really was different from what I was expecting. I never really thought about really the beginning of evolution or anything like that. This is a movie you watch to open your eyes to the actual societal and political works of science.


Remember this. Science by concensus is not science. It is politics under the guise of science headed by political monkeys out to pelt anyone who disagrees.
Lets break down the salient points, which the evolutionist followers, who are pretty akin to a religious institution, in spite of their howls to the contrary, are.

Evolution: Random mutations caused the changes and evolution of all species. All life began with one single cell organism. Never mind the complexity, nor that Darwin himself said if it would take more than one change to facilitate evolution, his entire theory was useless.
There is not one missing link. There are tens of thousands.

Creationism: Some dude pulled everything out of his wazoo from nothing and bang!! Here we are.

Intelligent Design: Someone/thing took the available items and, using intelligence, designed all the lifeforms and things in existence and tuned it to work properly.
A better way to put this, so that the evo's can scream from their pews, is imagine someone has all the materials to build something. They forge, pound, sand and weld. In the end, five tons of material is now a Ferrarri GT.
That is intelligent design. Evolution is, well, two ******** monkeys who nail a goat and come up with a squirrel.


Yeah! Burn that strawman, biatch!

But seriously, until you can prove there is a god: ID holds no water.

Evolution has a mountain of proof behind it, and it's quite a difficult concept to get your head around- but there's proof all animals come from one universal ancestor. We all share at least 40% of our DNA with all animals and plants, we all have many of the same organelles, our cells are quite similar and expression of genes is done in the exact same way in all eukaryotes. The fact that we have many redundant and counter-productive features (we eat and breathe through the same hole, we waste a lot of energy and nutrients on stupid things, we have many parts of our body we just don't need and we age in a rather clunky and stupid way) is evidence that, if there was a creator, he wasn't the wisest of the elders.


Where in my ID comment did I ever mention God? Or any deity? Not once. Clinging to the fallacy that ID always means God is disproving your very comments.
You're putting words in my mouth, and other peoples as well.
Burn your own strawman. And I am well aware Evolution doesn't cover monkeys screwing goats and creating squirrels. It was meant to make a point about the claim itself, nothing more, nothing less.
And are you saying that, according to evolution, it is not possible for a monkey to screw a goat and both it and the goat having a mutation in their genetic code that would allow for this to happen?
ElectricTerra's avatar

Feral Kitten

5,400 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • First step to fame 200
BlueCollarJoe

Where in my ID comment did I ever mention God? Or any deity? Not once. Clinging to the fallacy that ID always means God is disproving your very comments.
You're putting words in my mouth, and other peoples as well.
Burn your own strawman. And I am well aware Evolution doesn't cover monkeys screwing goats and creating squirrels. It was meant to make a point about the claim itself, nothing more, nothing less.
And are you saying that, according to evolution, it is not possible for a monkey to screw a goat and both it and the goat having a mutation in their genetic code that would allow for this to happen?
Well, it's highly unlikely that a monkey would be trying to mate with a goat. If they did, for some reason, copulate - it would be impossible for them to create offspring. You seem to misunderstand the meaning and principles of evolution. This can be easily corrected by reading a biology book or using Google.
BlueCollarJoe


Where in my ID comment did I ever mention God? Or any deity? Not once. Clinging to the fallacy that ID always means God is disproving your very comments.
In the space of two lines you forgot what was said. Jesus Christ Joe, drink much lately? ID assumes a designer. It's in the god damned title. Don't play with semantics to make it sound better. That won't work with anyone here.
Quote:
You're putting words in my mouth, and other peoples as well.
Just out of curiosity, what is a designer if it's not a deity?
Quote:
Burn your own strawman. And I am well aware Evolution doesn't cover monkeys screwing goats and creating squirrels. It was meant to make a point about the claim itself, nothing more, nothing less.
By misrepresenting it. As in, false analogy.
Quote:
And are you saying that, according to evolution, it is not possible for a monkey to screw a goat and both it and the goat having a mutation in their genetic code that would allow for this to happen?
Yes. I absolutely am. Remedial biology is your friend Joe.
BlueCollarJoe
aisebon
BlueCollarJoe
rstrous
The movie really was different from what I was expecting. I never really thought about really the beginning of evolution or anything like that. This is a movie you watch to open your eyes to the actual societal and political works of science.


Remember this. Science by concensus is not science. It is politics under the guise of science headed by political monkeys out to pelt anyone who disagrees.
Lets break down the salient points, which the evolutionist followers, who are pretty akin to a religious institution, in spite of their howls to the contrary, are.

Evolution: Random mutations caused the changes and evolution of all species. All life began with one single cell organism. Never mind the complexity, nor that Darwin himself said if it would take more than one change to facilitate evolution, his entire theory was useless.
There is not one missing link. There are tens of thousands.

Creationism: Some dude pulled everything out of his wazoo from nothing and bang!! Here we are.

Intelligent Design: Someone/thing took the available items and, using intelligence, designed all the lifeforms and things in existence and tuned it to work properly.
A better way to put this, so that the evo's can scream from their pews, is imagine someone has all the materials to build something. They forge, pound, sand and weld. In the end, five tons of material is now a Ferrarri GT.
That is intelligent design. Evolution is, well, two ******** monkeys who nail a goat and come up with a squirrel.


Yeah! Burn that strawman, biatch!

But seriously, until you can prove there is a god: ID holds no water.

Evolution has a mountain of proof behind it, and it's quite a difficult concept to get your head around- but there's proof all animals come from one universal ancestor. We all share at least 40% of our DNA with all animals and plants, we all have many of the same organelles, our cells are quite similar and expression of genes is done in the exact same way in all eukaryotes. The fact that we have many redundant and counter-productive features (we eat and breathe through the same hole, we waste a lot of energy and nutrients on stupid things, we have many parts of our body we just don't need and we age in a rather clunky and stupid way) is evidence that, if there was a creator, he wasn't the wisest of the elders.


Where in my ID comment did I ever mention God? Or any deity? Not once. Clinging to the fallacy that ID always means God is disproving your very comments.


Except you didn't go the extra step to find out that under pure ID you need a deity. The universe has existed for a finite amount of time, if aliens seeded the planet, those aliens would have needed a seeder, and so on and so on till the beginning of time, you either have a god, or abiogenesis via chemicals coming together as per the RNA world hypothesis (or some like process) of abiogenesis. You fundamentally need a god for ID to be accurate, therein lies your fallacy.

BlueCollarJoe
You're putting words in my mouth, and other peoples as well.


No, we're taking the logical extension of the "theory" or "hypothesis" you posit, (although you can't provide a single testable falsifiable hypothesis) and saying it fails because it mandates a god, go far enough back, you've got a maximum of 13.7 billion years, originally either a god did it, or it came about naturally, for ID to be accurate, it'd really have to be a god.

BlueCollarJoe
Burn your own strawman. And I am well aware Evolution doesn't cover monkeys screwing goats and creating squirrels. It was meant to make a point about the claim itself, nothing more, nothing less.


... "making a point about the claim itself"??? Excuse me, you stated something that would UTTERLY invalidate evolution, that's not making a point, that's presenting a total straw man. That's showing fundamental ignorance for the theory. That's not simply "making a point about the claim", it's demonstrably wrong and not even remotely resembling ANYTHING under evolutionary theory. Not a tiny bit, I mean, honestly, it is closer to ID than evolution.

BlueCollarJoe
And are you saying that, according to evolution, it is not possible for a monkey to screw a goat and both it and the goat having a mutation in their genetic code that would allow for this to happen?


That's exactly what we're saying, it's absolutely impossible for a goat and a monkey to mate, and have an offspring that would result in a squirrel. And by impossible I mean it in the sense most scientists do, something that's so unlikely it'd invalidate the theory. It's impossible for Adriana Lima to appear right in front of you naked, although quantumly it's possible, but only given an infinite amount of time. Likewise, it's impossible for such a mating to result in a squirrel, however given an infinite amount of time, you might get a few solutions by which it is possible. That said, the chances are so remote that we should NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER see it unless evolution is wrong, just like the chances are so remote Adriana Lima would appear in front of you naked that we should NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER see it unless our basic conceptions of quantum theory are wrong.
User Image
About a third of that movie was made up.
neutral
User Image
To anyone interested and especially those who have watched EXPELLED, I urge you, as a previous poster said, to beware of the sound of one hand clapping. Indeed there are two sides to every story.

There is a strong opposition in the scientific community to ID aka creationism ever since their origins. Why? Because of the blindness they promote- the blanket generalizations not involving science or even credible techniques.

For more information on both these subjects, you may visit the following websites to see what the proponents of ID aren't telling you.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

^^On nova's website you can actually watch the federal court case acted out and hear testimony from those involved. It is an hour long, but I found it fascinating. Just click "Watch Online" on the right hand side to see the entire program.

Blessed Be
Lady_Imrahil
vipr230

Umm, it is on topic then because ID simply isn't science... you can't dodge the question, if it doesn't have a testable falsifiable hypothesis, you can't claim it to be science, so a scientist would really have to abide by the scientific method. Still, the examples provided in the movie lost tenure and were fired not because of their absurd creationist viewpoints, but because of other reasons, like not having any grad students graduate or publishing or slipping a creationist paper through the peer review process.


I've never met or know a scientist to make that claim about Intelligent Design. Creationism, yes, and I agree with them there. I think you have the two confused. No, the scientists don't want "religious bias" to interfere or something like that. They claim that religion will prevent results, which is silly given the history of science. Why don't you go watch the movie, and then tell me off?? xd


ID proponents want ID to be taught in science classes. Dembski himself has tried to state that it's scientific. It's not.
Aloha Loi Helena
ElectricTerra
Aloha Loi Helena
vipr230
ElectricTerra
Iguana - I'm actually finding the video of Miller to be pretty amusing and interesting. ^.^ He's charming.


Miller's awesome, and is one of the biggest names in anti-creationism, yet he's catholic so apparently creationists don't like talking about him, he ruins their false dichotomy.
I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church takes no stand against Evolution. I have never been taught that evolution was false either by my schooling, my mother or my church leaders.
Is this Noora? Or Noora's daughter?
Your post is off topic. If you have personal questions you wish to seek information for please PM the person. Otherwise your post is spam, no offense. The topic here is the film Expelled. We are currently discussing whether ID is science or supernaturalism. My relationship to anyone on Gaia is irrelevant to the content of my posts. Please do not be offended, but there are too many people speculating about "Noora" in the midst of discussions and that id not helpful to the discussion/dialogue/debate itself.


Oh, so that's the topic.

Answer: It's not science. Thread over.
GunsmithKitten's avatar

Aged Lunatic

Quote:
I have already stated that teaching young pupils this would mess with their ability to memorize their math facts.


So you're against people messing with student's ability to learn math facts, BUT, when learning biology, you're all for throwing any notion into the mix in the name of academic "freedom" and "scientific freedom"?

Let the kids decide!

Just once....just once...let a teacher throw in teaching Taoist Alchemy and then use the EXACT SAME rhetoric Creationi....I mean...intelligent designers, quote unquote, use to proclaim that a science classroom needs to be an open forum to religious beliefs...

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games