I saw the film EXPELLED today and it was interesting ...

Select poll option that suits you most closely:

I am with Ben Stein who is a genius.	12.7%	[ 40 ]
I am with Dawkins who is brilliant!	28.3%	[ 89 ]
Darwinism is a foggy working hypothesis.	6.4%	[ 20 ]
There is no academic freedom anymore.	14.6%	[ 46 ]
I evolved from a cluster of cells that emerged from a pokey-ball.	37.9%	[ 119 ]
Total Votes:			[ 314 ]

[Feyre]

calamitynexus

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

I am not going to respond to your posts if you equate the two. They are quite different as one is based on mythos and the other on a scientific theory. If there are lunatics interested in ID they will be severely disappointed if they think it is going to prove the Bible to be accurate. Sorry, but a court case does not convince me that ID = creationism. Please respect this difference for the sake of the discussion.

It's not a scientific theory, for god's sake.
It's a hypothesis, nothing more.
And the idea about ID and creationism is the same, they both state that something or someone created animals and humans out of thin air.

Creationism states that God created everything from nothing. ID is looking for evidence of life coordinating and designing itself. It is not apart from evolution it is on track with evolution.

Intelligent design requires a designer, evolution excludes a designer.

Not necessarily. ID evolutionists believe that evolution happens in tangent with some master plan. Someone all powerful looks at the planet and says, "Hmmm, those horses need to be bigger." Then, over x number of years, horses evolve from being the size of a dog to the horses we know today because a great designer said so.

That's just still ridiculous and unscientific.

[789789789789p]

Methcalarjalope

calamitynexus

Methcalarjalope

A Confused Iguana

A problem when it comes to discrediting evolutionary theory is the number of different components it has. You have the actual principle of evolution, that gene frequencies change over time as populations breed. Then you have the selection principles like natural selection, sexual selection, gene selection, kin selection that assert how these gene frequencies change with time and for what reason. You have how fast these changes occurs: gradualism versus punctuated equilibria. Then you have the idea of common descent that suggests that the changing gene frequencies leads to populations diverging into different species.

There is no one single "evolutionary theory" to be tested. There are multiple aspects that exist independently of one another but work as a whole to be what we call "evolutionary theory". To show them all to be in error would take a tremendous amount of contradictory evidence.

Thank you Iguana. I knew I could count on you to sort this all out for me. ID as a theory for a dynamic within the cell itself that appears to be self guided for mutations ... can you think of a way to make this theory testable and falsifiable?

You can't falsify ID because it is based on an idea rooted in thelogy.

Something powerful and invisible is responsible for the genetic makeup of all life, whether it came from evolution or creationalism.

In order to prove/disprove ID you need to prove/disprove the idea of an intelligent designer. So unless aliens land on earth with video footage of them evolving s**t, or Jesus rises again and says God did it, you can't prove the theory. Therefore, it isn't science.

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.

No, its about the who.

ID= intelligent desing
Intelligent means there is a cause. That something is making things evolve a certain way. It is based on the idea that evolution is mapped out. It is based on the principle of Fate. Fate=Theology

[789789789789p]

Feyre

calamitynexus

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

I am not going to respond to your posts if you equate the two. They are quite different as one is based on mythos and the other on a scientific theory. If there are lunatics interested in ID they will be severely disappointed if they think it is going to prove the Bible to be accurate. Sorry, but a court case does not convince me that ID = creationism. Please respect this difference for the sake of the discussion.

It's not a scientific theory, for god's sake.
It's a hypothesis, nothing more.
And the idea about ID and creationism is the same, they both state that something or someone created animals and humans out of thin air.

Creationism states that God created everything from nothing. ID is looking for evidence of life coordinating and designing itself. It is not apart from evolution it is on track with evolution.

Intelligent design requires a designer, evolution excludes a designer.

Not necessarily. ID evolutionists believe that evolution happens in tangent with some master plan. Someone all powerful looks at the planet and says, "Hmmm, those horses need to be bigger." Then, over x number of years, horses evolve from being the size of a dog to the horses we know today because a great designer said so.

That's just still ridiculous and unscientific.

I agree, but its how they roll. And at least ID evolutionists aren't claiming carbon dating is off by plus 70 million years

[Jaaten Syric]

calamitynexus

Not necessarily. ID evolutionists believe that evolution happens in tangent with some master plan. Someone all powerful looks at the planet and says, "Hmmm, those horses need to be bigger." Then, over x number of years, horses evolve from being the size of a dog to the horses we know today because a great designer said so.

Slight problem; I have never seen a theistic 'evolutionist' identify themselves, or hell, even affiliate themselves with the ID movement unless they have either been misinformed or mislead about what its states as ID and evolution are (at least in the minds of those pushing it) diametically opposed.

[vipr230]

calamitynexus

I agree, but its how they roll. And at least ID evolutionists aren't claiming carbon dating is off by plus 70 million years

... To those that claim carbon dating is off by 70+ million years I have to ask "why the hell use carbon dating?" Carbon dating fails after around 50k years, use isotopes with longer half lives if you're going 70 million.

[Lord Setar]

calamitynexus

Feyre

calamitynexus

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Creationism states that God created everything from nothing. ID is looking for evidence of life coordinating and designing itself. It is not apart from evolution it is on track with evolution.

Intelligent design requires a designer, evolution excludes a designer.

Not necessarily. ID evolutionists believe that evolution happens in tangent with some master plan. Someone all powerful looks at the planet and says, "Hmmm, those horses need to be bigger." Then, over x number of years, horses evolve from being the size of a dog to the horses we know today because a great designer said so.

That's just still ridiculous and unscientific.

I agree, but its how they roll. And at least ID evolutionists aren't claiming carbon dating is off by plus 70 million years

Considering that carbon dating can only be used until 50,000 or so years, or 10 half-lives of Carbon-14...

[Feyre]

calamitynexus

Feyre

calamitynexus

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Creationism states that God created everything from nothing. ID is looking for evidence of life coordinating and designing itself. It is not apart from evolution it is on track with evolution.

Intelligent design requires a designer, evolution excludes a designer.

Not necessarily. ID evolutionists believe that evolution happens in tangent with some master plan. Someone all powerful looks at the planet and says, "Hmmm, those horses need to be bigger." Then, over x number of years, horses evolve from being the size of a dog to the horses we know today because a great designer said so.

That's just still ridiculous and unscientific.

I agree, but its how they roll. And at least ID evolutionists aren't claiming carbon dating is off by plus 70 million years

None of this negates the fact that many creationists hide behind the ID label.

[Methcalarjalope]

vipr230

Methcalarjalope

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.

See, the problem is you can't test that, even if the "who" doesn't matter, it's untestable! It was created to get creationism taught in a classroom, cdesign proponists, and fails to actually provide a testable empirical hypothesis, let alone a shred of empirical evidence.

Organic evolution is not testable either, only parts of it. As an overarching theory it is not falsifiable because the theory will be tweaked. I have no interest in having creationism taught in public school. I don't even teach that to my children from a religious standpoint. I simply reject creationism. ID is not creationism. ID is about cell life. I am not a scientist so I don't know how to explain it to you in scientific terms. I am more of the artist type. I can only tell you that there is something to this and in a few years you will be interested in this yourselves once you realize that it is not creationism and it is not trying to get you to believe in a god or worship a god.

[GunsmithKitten]

Yes or no, Noora....all I'm askin.....

[Methcalarjalope]

Feyre

calamitynexus

Feyre

calamitynexus

Feyre

Methcalarjalope

Creationism states that God created everything from nothing. ID is looking for evidence of life coordinating and designing itself. It is not apart from evolution it is on track with evolution.

Intelligent design requires a designer, evolution excludes a designer.

Not necessarily. ID evolutionists believe that evolution happens in tangent with some master plan. Someone all powerful looks at the planet and says, "Hmmm, those horses need to be bigger." Then, over x number of years, horses evolve from being the size of a dog to the horses we know today because a great designer said so.

That's just still ridiculous and unscientific.

I agree, but its how they roll. And at least ID evolutionists aren't claiming carbon dating is off by plus 70 million years

None of this negates the fact that many creationists hide behind the ID label.

conceded.

This is not my use of the term. ID for me is not creationism and it is not disproving evolution but is a new way of viewing genetic selection and mutation based on a kind of interior dynamic that is self driven in a way we don't understand. It appears to be designed or self designed or to be "intelligent." If it helps try thinking of artificial intelligence.

[789789789789p]

Methcalarjalope

vipr230

Methcalarjalope

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.

See, the problem is you can't test that, even if the "who" doesn't matter, it's untestable! It was created to get creationism taught in a classroom, cdesign proponists, and fails to actually provide a testable empirical hypothesis, let alone a shred of empirical evidence.

Organic evolution is not testable either, only parts of it. As an overarching theory it is not falsifiable because the theory will be tweaked. I have no interest in having creationism taught in public school. I don't even teach that to my children from a religious standpoint. I simply reject creationism. ID is not creationism. ID is about cell life. I am not a scientist so I don't know how to explain it to you in scientific terms. I am more of the artist type. I can only tell you that there is something to this and in a few years you will be interested in this yourselves once you realize that it is not creationism and it is not trying to get you to believe in a god or worship a god.

God or no God ID is still an idea based upon "higher power" or mystical forces.

And wht parts of evolution aren't testable? The only issue we can't povide evidence for is crawling out of the primordial soup.

[Lord Setar]

Methcalarjalope

vipr230

Methcalarjalope

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.

See, the problem is you can't test that, even if the "who" doesn't matter, it's untestable! It was created to get creationism taught in a classroom, cdesign proponists, and fails to actually provide a testable empirical hypothesis, let alone a shred of empirical evidence.

Organic evolution is not testable either, only parts of it. As an overarching theory it is not falsifiable because the theory will be tweaked. I have no interest in having creationism taught in public school. I don't even teach that to my children from a religious standpoint. I simply reject creationism. ID is not creationism. ID is about cell life. I am not a scientist so I don't know how to explain it to you in scientific terms. I am more of the artist type. I can only tell you that there is something to this and in a few years you will be interested in this yourselves once you realize that it is not creationism and it is not trying to get you to believe in a god or worship a god.

ID is also not science, and it does not belong in a science class.

[Lord Setar]

calamitynexus

Methcalarjalope

vipr230

Methcalarjalope

Events powerful and invisable or unknown caused life on this planet. When we get to first cause we are all on equal footing. ID is not about "who" so much as does life itself drive it's on direction; make it's own mutations based on some designer element that has not been defined. It is not about theology. Theologians and religious nutters may hope it is, but it really is not.

See, the problem is you can't test that, even if the "who" doesn't matter, it's untestable! It was created to get creationism taught in a classroom, cdesign proponists, and fails to actually provide a testable empirical hypothesis, let alone a shred of empirical evidence.

Organic evolution is not testable either, only parts of it. As an overarching theory it is not falsifiable because the theory will be tweaked. I have no interest in having creationism taught in public school. I don't even teach that to my children from a religious standpoint. I simply reject creationism. ID is not creationism. ID is about cell life. I am not a scientist so I don't know how to explain it to you in scientific terms. I am more of the artist type. I can only tell you that there is something to this and in a few years you will be interested in this yourselves once you realize that it is not creationism and it is not trying to get you to believe in a god or worship a god.

God or no God ID is still an idea based upon "higher power" or mystical forces.

And wht parts of evolution aren't testable? The only issue we can't povide evidence for is crawling out of the primordial soup.

Which is abiogenesis, not evolution - the two are mutually exclusive.

[Redem]

mrsculedhel

Honey, I am a good Catholic and I don't believe in Creationism!!!!

Not trying to suggest you do, you've made that clear. But the only sources I have seen claiming things like that are creationist sources. Some obviously creationist, some pretending to be scientific.

mrsculedhel

I was raised in a scientific community and have an advanced degree in Anthroplogy! I have never questioned evolution in my life. eek The film convinced me that there is a reason to make way for ID. That's all.

It is successful propaganda, then.

I think it likes to confuse two things.

ID in the sense that all religious people believe there is an intelligent creator who made the universe and life, and endowed us with souls.

And the ID movement, a political movement headed by the Discovery Institute, and similar creationist think tanks, who's goal is to wedge open the science classrooms of the US and insert religion.

They're still trying to get the tip in, the Dover trial was their last attempt. Now it's "academic freedom" bills, and making movies about how "Big science" is suppressing them.

They don't do science, they don't research or test or gather evidence, they just do political advocacy.

mrsculedhel

For a compedium of anomolous finds try the book, Forbidden Archaeology.

Hmm, a web source would be easier to check, but I can find reviews of the book.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html

[789789789789p]

Methcalarjalope

Feyre

calamitynexus

Feyre

calamitynexus

Not necessarily. ID evolutionists believe that evolution happens in tangent with some master plan. Someone all powerful looks at the planet and says, "Hmmm, those horses need to be bigger." Then, over x number of years, horses evolve from being the size of a dog to the horses we know today because a great designer said so.

That's just still ridiculous and unscientific.

I agree, but its how they roll. And at least ID evolutionists aren't claiming carbon dating is off by plus 70 million years

None of this negates the fact that many creationists hide behind the ID label.

conceded.

This is not my use of the term. ID for me is not creationism and it is not disproving evolution but is a new way of viewing genetic selection and mutation based on a kind of interior dynamic that is self driven in a way we don't understand. It appears to be designed or self designed or to be "intelligent." If it helps try thinking of artificial intelligence.

But thats still rooted in mysticism. You would have to rely on something ike Chakra to be the force that alows cells to evolve themselves. Plus how does ID treat failed evolutions? Many species have evolved traits that are counter productive to their environments. If there cells were going to evolve in an intelligent way one would think that this 'intelligence' would take environment into account.