It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Ownification
reply to post by tezzajw
The problem that you can't rap your . around is the fact that Darwin's Theory is a theory ehh. A theory doesn't need evidence to support it, it is guess work hence there is no evidence to support dark matter, we just guessed its there because hence subjective.
falsifiable means the ability to prove it false.
1: the study of meanings.
for instance, the theory of gravity is a falsifiable theory.
... an invisible omnipotent omnipresent being did it.
ID does not make me uncomfortable.
I don't think it's science
... creation has nothing to do with evolution.
So you like word games, do you?
Originally posted by visible_villain
But, for the record, let me just state that evolution, that is to say Darwinism is absolutely posited on abiogenesis - the so-called primordial soup conjecture, combined with other absurdities involving atmospheric pressures, lightining bolts, and who knows what else, all combining in a perfect storm of randomness to produce the first self-replicating molecule, which therafter over the course of billions and billions of years finally evolved into all the species which have ever existed on Earth.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
This is a very iffy subject, but in all honesty, if we evolutionists are gonna be hammering down, the "there is no god when it comes to how we became man" theories, then IMO we should atleast be discussing the alternative theory.
Not necessarilly teach and grade children but have open ended discussions on the possibilities and the implications. This would help stimulate constructive, intelligent scientific conversations about the pros and cons of such design.
It might help some students come to terms with science if they are highly religious, and if nothing, it will make christians happy for a little bit.
That's a price i'm willing to pay. Besides it's not like kids aren't going to hear it from anybody else.
Why do you insist on calling the theory of evolution through natural selection Darwinism, when it has been refined considerably since Darwin wrote his famous treatise?
Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic.
1. Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce themselves population growth would result.
2. Yet populations remain roughly the same size, with small changes.
3. Resources such as food are limited, and are relatively stable over time.
4. A struggle for survival ensues.
5. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical.
6. Some of these variations directly affect the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.
7. Much of this variation is inheritable.
8. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.
9. The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.
10. This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, these variations accumulate to form new varieties, and ultimately, new species.
Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially. They argue that something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own. Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof". Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large".
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.
Originally posted by cognoscente
Stop trying to make it more complicated than it is. This is exactly how Darwin viewed natural selection. Nothing much has changed, not because the idea of natural selection is archaic, but because it is so flawless that nothing has to be changed.
Evolution by means of natural selection( evolutionary theory as we understand it today) is about how life diversifies. It is not about how life arose.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
So what if the idea of "Intelligent Design" is meant as a social tool; a kind of 'cultural patch' while the transition from God (I speak not of spirituality hear) to Science. It is indisputable in learned circles that science trumps religion as reproducable results prove it. But the majority of society doesn't yet understand...the security blanket of 'easy' is still required.
Hence those who want the comfort of knowing that science has a higher power as well can have it...those who don't need such a security blanket can ignore ID.
I am of the opinion now that the creation of ID as a viable concept is a social engineering tool to soften the beating that "God" has taken in the past century and a half. It's a patch.
Precisely because the values and mores of a society tend to adhere, big picture again, to the Fundamentalism structure in that change must necessarily take a long time to be implemented.
I no longer think that ID is a stupid theory (it is in my opinion)...rather it is a brilliant concession made by the powers that be to insure that the God illusion doesn't get obliterated...crushing the psychological foundation of a great many people.
I hope any of that makes sense...and I hope that noone is offended by my bluntness.
Originally posted by americandingbat
Are you saying that the "powers that be" are both shepherding us toward a more "scientific" understanding of life and its processes, and introducting concepts like ID as a form of shock absorber on that shepherding?
Originally posted by xstealth
This Senator is correct, and the is no proof of the big bang evolution theory.