|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 1, 2005 20:31:47 GMT -5
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Mar 1, 2005 22:53:27 GMT -5
It's mind boggling. Individually or all put together, what is discounted by the Creationists is... well, disturbing.
Some great articles on that site... Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 2, 2005 0:22:58 GMT -5
I do what I can..
|
|
|
Post by Mistwalker on Apr 7, 2005 4:04:33 GMT -5
I think it's fine to teach creationism in schools... in the comparative religion classes offered at many schools.
The first article there talked about "Teaching the controversy". There is no controversy among SCIENTISTS. The only "controversy" is among those who disregard science in favor of their religion. There is not and never has been any scientific evidence for creationism.
And this "Intelligent Design Theory" isn't a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. There's nothing testable there. It simply doesn't fit the definition of science. There's no standard of evidence for what is and is not made by god. You can attribute anything you want to a poorly defined omnipotent being. You might as well be looking for evidence that magic blue rectal dwelling trolls made the universe.
Sorry, got off on a bit of a rant there. Creationists trying to get their religion taught as science make me incredibly angry. Kent Hovind, for example. They go to a degree mill, get a "phd", and they're all set to fight the scourge of "evilution", as they many times spell it.
*goes and breaks something*
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim on Dec 26, 2005 23:33:53 GMT -5
Mistwalker, as I challenged someone on another board please describe in detail how the eye evolved. At least try to make it credible.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 27, 2005 1:53:37 GMT -5
Your question was answered. Show evidence of how it was produced by an "intelligent designer".
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Dec 27, 2005 13:49:45 GMT -5
I think Pilgrim thinks atheists are just dying to convince him of something or other. We should explain it to him, he says. Don't.
|
|
|
Post by audioinput on Feb 20, 2006 12:31:00 GMT -5
Oh, crud, that says "file not found" now...
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Feb 20, 2006 23:20:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Feb 27, 2006 20:47:39 GMT -5
Truely though Pigrim we did answer your question. At any rate its not difficult. Oh yes and pilgrim you still havent supported how it happend by devine means. Im interested what is your god telling you?
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Jul 20, 2006 14:36:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Jul 21, 2006 18:50:35 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem with the whole evolution v. ID "controversy" is that people are uninformed and many lacking in the requisite scientific knowledge to make an informed decision about either one. They then rely upon secondary information avenues like friends, mentors, media and so forth to make that determination for them.
In my time of debating evolution v. ID/Creationism that has been the largest part of the problem I've found. Most people I discuss it with have a very distorted view of what evolutionary theory actually is.
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Aug 1, 2006 13:14:23 GMT -5
Most people I discuss it with have a very distorted view of what evolutionary theory actually is. I think a lot of people assume too much based on their primary meaning of the word itself "evolution" It's really a poor word to describe the process. Good word for the result perhaps. The non-scientific definition implies development over time, improvement, becoming better, etc. The implication is that individual things can change. The scientific definition involves natural selection through successive generations and the indifferent elimination or masking of the majority of mutations. It's really about tinkering and elimination, not anything like the first meaning. Applying only the non-scientific definition, I could be convinced that evolution is ridiculous as well. ===== Similar issue with the word "theory"
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Dec 27, 2006 23:24:08 GMT -5
There is no controversy among SCIENTISTS. The only "controversy" is among those who disregard science in favor of their religion. This is not so! Many of the people who object to evolution are themselves reptuable scientists, such as those from the Intelligent Design movement and from young-earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis. For examples of scientists who reject evolution, see: www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.aspOne creationist scientist, Dr. Russell Humphreys, estimates by a statistical approach and his personal experience that "there are around 10,000 practising professional scientists who openly believe in six-day recent creation" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp). Additionally, young-earth creationists aren't the only group of scientists who reject evolution, so the actual number of scientists who challenge evolution at any level would be even higher. (For example, the Intelligent Design folks such as Dr. Stephen Meyer and old-earth creationists such as Dr. Hugh Ross). I suggest you read the creationist literature! Check out the following sources if you're interested: Technical Journals on Creation Sciencewww.answersingenesis.org/tj/archive/www.creationresearch.org/crsq.htmlSome Creationist Sources for the Laymanwww.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.aspwww.creationscience.comwww.answersingenesis.org/creation/archive/www.icr.orgNo, there is a reasonable criterion for detecting intelligent design, and that is "specified complexity," a property that only biological life exhibits. See www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter9.asp
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Jan 5, 2007 19:59:23 GMT -5
|
|