It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida to be next battleground for Intelligent Design?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 



I already sent in a "Letter to the Editor" and I'm just going to copy and paste that here as I think that sums up my thoughts on this


It is suprising to me that people react so strongly to the notion the universe was created by an intelligent power, perhaps even instaneously.

All we have to the contrary is about 150-years of scientific prejudice as well as our old friend the platypus, as well as other examples that the evolution of species from some sort of 'primordial soup' is nonsense.

Why the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the 'creationist' viewpoint ? I don't understand it.


That same "Scientific Prejudice" is what is allowing you and I to post on an internet forum, using computers powered by electricity.

There is hostility to the Creationist POV because they want a 2000 year old myth to be taught as hard science, despite no actual evidence and a "Theory" that isn't even falsifiable.




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
The theory of evolution is only a theory, it has never ever been scientifically proven.

"Macro-evolution" is not science. Science requires the statements to be tested. If the statement cannot be tested-it cannot conform to the criteria of science. It does not deserve to be taught as scientific anything. It is just an idea someone had.

There has been No observation of Macro-evolution from one species to another:

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.

Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete.

Yet observation of Micro-evolution Within an ORGANISM (ie: bacteria) is used to try to prove the Overall THEORY of evolution.

---------------------------------

Taking all of the above into account. ID can & should be seen & taught as an EQUAL theory, and discussed as such.

Furthermore, ID is Not creationism or religion. Those that call it such are purposely making false inferences in order to create larger bias against it.




[edit on 2-8-09 by atoms.2008]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
My question to those that choose to frame this as an either / or proposition is this:

Why are these theories presented as though they are mutually exclusive?

Please consider the possibility that evolution occurs BECAUSE of intelligent design.

I offer these techniques to weigh judgment on both theories:


Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?


www.carlsagan.com...


My biggest doubt concerning the theory of formation of life in the "primordial soup" of amino acids forming proteins; is that we have yet to observe or even able to artificially repeat the theory of amino acids linking to form a protein. We have yet to find evidence of a protein being formed outside of an already living cell - even when we manipulate the environment.

This is to me is the definition of Biogenesis - that life only comes from life.

Where this bogs down is the supposition that the coding contained in RNA and DNA that provides the information to cells that makes life possible occurs by chance. All available evidence indicates that it takes intelligence to devise code and arrange them into patterns of instruction.

Though there are many gaps in the theories of evolution once this life is formed; I find little to cause doubt that humans evolved from less developed earlier life forms.

While there is much scientific evidence to support that evolution has and continues to occur, there is the same evidence [or lack of] that allows the theory that the original formation of life came about as a result of intelligent design.

I offer one last observation - absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
For all you ID people... Jump off a cliff. Gravity is a theory. Teach the Earth is flat after all it is just a theory the Earth being round. Teach them that you don't need to breath after all atoms like oxygen are just a theory. I can't believe people with IQ's under 10 are allowed to live with out big stickers placed on their forehead saying "I beweev in majik an indiviisebl peeplz"



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I'm sorry-I have my bachelor's in Anthropology and the whole "Intelligent Design" thing freaks. me. out. Its just a big slippery slope-Science is made up of proven hypothesis-nothing is fact. We will teach gravity until we find some other theory that is better. This is not about hiding any kind of information-its about how it has no place in a learning environment that is not Sunday school.
You invalidate history. So, if you were to think the world is only 6,000 years old then why teach any kind of historical timeline?
Why teach medicine? If people get sick it must be God's will...

I cannot understand why people can't find God in evolution!

You cannot teach this in schools and then send these children to college-what are they going to major in?

If you're going to teach Intelligent Design you might as well include all other theories held by any other present living culture to make it "fair" and represent all "possible views"...don't forget the chapter on Xenu!
Or you could just all get over it, let the kids focus on the SCIENCE of it all, and educate your own children on the religious beliefs you'd like them to have at home around the dining room table with all other religous views on various aspects of life you would be teaching them anyway.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 



I already sent in a "Letter to the Editor" and I'm just going to copy and paste that here as I think that sums up my thoughts on this


It is suprising to me that people react so strongly to the notion the universe was created by an intelligent power, perhaps even instaneously.

All we have to the contrary is about 150-years of scientific prejudice as well as our old friend the platypus, as well as other examples that the evolution of species from some sort of 'primordial soup' is nonsense.

Why the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the 'creationist' viewpoint ? I don't understand it.



you also, apparently, don't understand evolution. evolutionary theory does not explain, nor does it attempt to explain the origin of life or the creation of the universe.

the negative viewpoint? ID and creationism are not science, they are not falsifiable. you can't experiment with "god did it" or "some intelligence that is godlike but we wont call it god to make you feel better, did it." you want to believe in an intelligent designer(god did it) feel free, there's no problem there. you want to teach it as an opposing view point to evolution(incorrectly as i've stated) that's not fine as, like i said it's not science. teach that in a philosophy class if you want it in schools so bad.

the science you guys are after is abiogenesis, not evolution. creationism and id are still not science , but at least get your area of science you'd like to refute with mythology correct please.

there've been at least a hundred threads on this, and still none of you guys and gals against evolution seem to be able to research what it really is you're against. it's tiring to see so many of us again and again have to inform you that you're comparing apples to oranges.




Again for clarity: evolution does not attempt to explain how or why life started(or the universe), it never has and never will.

abiogenesis and the big bang do that.

intelligent design and creationism are not science, they are not falsifiable, ie you can't test it.


as an aside for those of you on the "theory" kick, in science a theory is supported by evidence, and can be tested(falsifiable). a hypothesis is just an idea not supported by evidence. it is true that in today's laymen's vocabulary theory is used to describe what in science is called a hypothesis, but that in no way means that in science this is so. and those who use the word theory in relation to science, as if it's a bad thing(something without evidence) are trying to manipulate you.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_awoke
 


That would require proper parenting, and in today's society that's not the in thing. Most parents would rather delegate those duties to the teachers and school districts and then moan about how said people are "corrupting" their children.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


That same "Scientific Prejudice" is what is allowing you and I to post on an internet forum, using computers powered by electricity.


Certainly modern science has no idea what electricity is either, although the techno-weenies can predict with high precision ( within certain bounds, of course ) how electricity will behave.

Computer engineering, which gave us our personal computers and the internet over which we exchange ideas and views has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinism - let's not mix our metaphores !

My point is this - certainly one must accept that the universe was 'created' somehow. Currently in vogue is the 'big bang' theory we've all heard of, which is still quite a productive field of study for researchers to secure ever more funding ... IMHO it is little more than that - just another ridiculous scientific notion the establishment is far too proud to let go of.

In any case, somehow the universe was 'created' - on that point I believe we can all agree.

Now, as to whether or not it was created in an initial condition of chaos or complete, organized perfection, IMHO is merely splitting hairs.

Again - I find it strange that one can so strongly tend toward one view while so strongly abhoring the other.

Isn't 'scientific inquiry' supposed to be about 'suspended disbelief' and a 'dispassionate' search for the 'facts?'



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


ID and creationism are not science


Careful !

This is not such an open and closed case as you might imagine !



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


if you're going to quote me, quote the whole sentence. i said id and creationism are not science, they are not falsifiable, ie you can't test it. show me a way of testing "god did it" or "there's an intelligent, godlike force, that isn't god , that did it". i'm not trying to be snarky, i'd honestly like to see such a test. so far as i know one doesn't exist.

quoting partial sentences is a horrid way to debate, and honestly just bad form.

secondly, after my large post in response to yours originally ....that's all you have to say? meanwhile one post above the one i'm responding to, you again are talking about the bigbang and creation of life and the universe.

make no mistake, this thread is about evolution, not how or why life was first created. your comments about the big bang and creation of life are off topic. please stop confusing those who are unaware that there is a difference between abiogenesis, the big bang and evolution. it's dishonest.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Why are people still discussing this? Didn't this ridiculous debate end a year or two ago? The only way to end this discussion, is to ignore it. Anytime people on the side of evolution try to make a clear and logical argument, it's bombarded rants filled with by fantasy and mythology. I don't mean to offend, but someday when we're all grown up, we'll look back and laugh at this whole situation.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal
quoting partial sentences is a horrid way to debate


But at least it's in good form.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


I think the objection is less to the existence or non-existence of a Creator (which can and should be discussed in a philosophy class for example) but to the absurd mishmash of propaganda and willful ignorance that refuses to acknowledge the scientific method or recognize the irrefutable evidence of evolution that we have from a century of scientific studies of heredity.

The same willful ignorance and propaganda that insists on combining two entirely separate scientific theories – the theory of evolution by natural selection and the theory of the Big Bang – and seems to believe that lack of evidence for one is lack of evidence for the other.

I confess I don't know my astrophysics, so I don't know what the evidence for the Big Bang is, or if it's more compelling than the idea that God created the world. But I know what the evidence of evolution is, and have never seen any evidence that is not compatible with it.

The existence or non-existence of God does not belong in the science classroom.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 

Ok, what the heck - I'll bite !



i said id and creationism are not science


Now you've said it twice. Thank you.


... they are not falsifiable, ie you can't test it


I believe here you are trying to say, "it's not possible to prove a negative." I guess you're right, that's what I've heard, anyway.


quoting partial sentences is a horrid way to debate, and honestly just bad form.


Whether or not ID is bad science has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is possible to or not to prove a negative.


make no mistake, this thread is about evolution, not how or why life was first created.


If life were initially created in a fully evolved state, then that would negate the possibility of evolution, right ? That's all I was driving at.

External Source


Abiogenesis
Primordial soup" redirects here.


Please excuse me for saying so, but IMHO your arguments are all over the board. It appears as if you don't really know where you are coming from or where you stand regarding the issue, except that you don't like it. And that's fine.

Evidently ID makes you extremely uncomfortable for some reason.

Calm your mind and look into it, my friend. Do some more reading. You may find some interesting suprises ! I know I did.




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 



... the absurd mishmash of propaganda and willful ignorance that refuses to acknowledge the scientific method


I would be most happy to debate this issue with you, honorable colleague !



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 


Why are people still discussing this?


Because it is still an open question, my friend !



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by americandingbat
 



... the absurd mishmash of propaganda and willful ignorance that refuses to acknowledge the scientific method


I would be most happy to debate this issue with you, honorable colleague !


It would be my pleasure … I've had so few opportunities to fight for something I actually believe in


Would that be the topic? "The theory of Intelligent Design is an absurd mishmash of propaganda and willful ignorance."

After the tournament maybe?



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
As an Atheist I actually highly support this.

It would clearly define (and would send the message to the rest of the world) once for all how poor education in this country is.

And I think that we need this, we need to really hit the bottom of the barrel, only then we can recognize our mistakes better, only then we can really understand why the rest of the world laughs as we are getting behind...



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 



falsifiable means the ability to prove it false. for instance, the theory of gravity is a falsifiable theory. it requires evidence, that we've gathered, to support it. if evidence arises to dispute the theory and it's accepted, it can then be said to be false. how do you do that with " an invisible omnipotent omnipresent being did it"? you can't , which means it's not a falsifiable hypothesis. it's not about proving a negative.

and my comments are not all over the board, you were the one who brought up creation and the big bang. i stated quite clearly several times, that evolution is not about how life came about, which is what abiogenesis is. so basically i was responding to your erroneous mashing-up of evolution, the big bang and abiogenesis. you're trying to obfuscate.

ID does not make me uncomfortable. I don't think it's science, and neither does 99% of the scientific community. i have no problem with you believing it, or teaching it to your kids, as long as you do it on your own time. It however does not belong in the classroom as part of science.

my statement:
"quoting partial sentences is a horrid way to debate, and honestly just bad form."

you're reply:
"Whether or not ID is bad science has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is possible to or not to prove a negative."

what does your reply have to do with the statement above it? nothing. my statement there had nothing to do with bad science or proving a negative, which again falsifiability is not proving a negative. my sentence was directed at your partial quoting of my sentence, which is bad form in debate.

created in a fully evolved state? again that's going up against abiogenesis, not evolution. sure if you proved that every animal to have lived was created fully formed with no evidence of natural selection or speciation you would falsify abiogenesis and evolution, however this is not the case. so untill then creation has nothing to do with evolution



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Would that be the topic? "The theory of Intelligent Design is an absurd mishmash of propaganda and willful ignorance."

After the tournament maybe?


I don't think I'm entirely happy with the verbage as stated, but I'm sure we can come to terms on something agreeable to us both.


I think after the tournament is good - if I manage to avoid complete dishonor and can still show my face around here afterwards !



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join