Intelligent Design

quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel\That being said, intelligent design is really just an attempt to integrate religion into science. They should be separate, and absolutely not taught in schools.
Did you mean to say that religion should not be taught in schools? I'm guessing that you have no objection to science being taught in schools, so I'll proceed under the assumption that you meant to say that religion/creationism should not be taught in public schools. Am I right so far?

If you are against creationism being taught in public schools, are you also against macro-evolution and the origins of life being taught? The reason I ask is that all three (creationism, macro-evolution, and the origins of life) fall under the heading of Beliefs. Why should one set of beliefs be taught and not others? That sounds dangerously close to a governmental establishment of religion.

If you’re lucky enough to be fishing, you’re lucky enough.

I never thought I’d see nut balls, taint, and Fibonacci in the same thread.

this has thread of June written all over it

quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel

After all, it was over 20-30 million years.


Well, 20-30 million years is the blink of an eye for an "evolutionist". Scientists believe that the horseshoe crab hasn't changed in 445 million years. So you think that pretty much the entire darwinian tree exploded in 20 million years, yet the horseshoe crab hasn't evolved in 445 million is plausible? What are the chances that literally every other species on the planet evolved except for this one? How many TRILLIONS of coin tosses would it take?
Well for starters, that's not true. Horseshoe crabs have evolved in the past 400 million years. No, they didn't turn into rose bushes, but they did lose an entire set of limbs. There's very little pressure in that niche to change, hence the lack of dramatic change anti-evolutionists like to see. What would be the intelligent design reasoning? That God just doesn't like horseshoe crabs?
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel

That being said, intelligent design is really just an attempt to integrate religion into science. They should be separate, and absolutely not taught in schools.


That's not true. They do not mention God in any of the videos. It's a theory that has a pretty solid logical argument. Darwin's theory of natural selection is just a theory as well. Why should it be taught in schools and no other alternative theories be allowed to be taught?

The only reason why Darwin’s theory has any merit with scientists is because they first assume that a creator\designer does not exist, and then based on that assumption they THEN look for some plausible mechanism. Instead, they should be objective as science dictates and look at all evidence with an open mind. I think that if they did that, the evidence for design far outweighs the theory of random mutation.


I'm not saying the video says it's true, but I'm just getting at what the root of the intelligent design movement is about. Evolution is flawed b/c there was a master plan. It's either the work of God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Evolution theory is backed in science, and is being improved on every day. Intelligent design is an attack on the concept of a theory, and attempts to fill the holes with some type of divine intervention. The difference between science thinkers and anti-evolutionists is that science is okay with not knowing, but it keeps trying to find the answer. Anti-evolutionists would rather just fill the gaps with “Obviously there was a master plan” and

quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel

I’m not saying the video says it’s true, but I’m just getting at what the root of the intelligent design movement is about. Evolution is flawed b/c there was a master plan. It’s either the work of God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


That's not true. It's the thought that if you look at all of the facts with an objective mind, then you come to the conclusion that things are "designed", not created my random chances. It's just like if you were walking through the forest and came across mount rushmore which you had never seen before, or heard about before, and wonder how it got there, you wouldn't speculate that it was created from erosion over millions of years. You would instantly recognize it as architected and designed since it is a recognizable pattern.

And if you calculate the statistical odds of random chances of a human forming from prehistoric goo, you wouldn’t have enough zeroes on the planet to put after the decimal. It’s statistically impossible even over millions of years.

quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel

Well for starters, that’s not true. Horseshoe crabs have evolved in the past 400 million years. No, they didn’t turn into rose bushes, but they did lose an entire set of limbs. There’s very little pressure in that niche to change, hence the lack of dramatic change anti-evolutionists like to see. What would be the intelligent design reasoning? That God just doesn’t like horseshoe crabs?


Okay, there has been very LITTLE "change" in 450 million years per science, yet pretty much every phyla on the planet today was formed over a period of 20 million years. That doesn't sound even a bit odd to you?
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel

Well for starters, that’s not true. Horseshoe crabs have evolved in the past 400 million years. No, they didn’t turn into rose bushes, but they did lose an entire set of limbs. There’s very little pressure in that niche to change, hence the lack of dramatic change anti-evolutionists like to see. What would be the intelligent design reasoning? That God just doesn’t like horseshoe crabs?


Okay, there has been very LITTLE "change" in 450 million years per science, yet pretty much every phyla on the planet today was formed over a period of 20 million years. That doesn't sound even a bit odd to you?
The current iteration of the horseshoe crab has only been around for 20 million or so years. Even though it doesn't look that different, it is. They have almost no natural predators. It's unusual, but can be reasoned.

The way I see it, BOTH sides teach their side as ‘the truth’, and NEITHER can be totally TRUE, because of intellect, and interpretation getting in the way.

As for evolution, the best counter, simply, I have heard is "why are we not in different stages with different people and animals???
I have heard the answer, SLOW MUTATIONS,etc., still just doesn’t seem to be enough changes in man for their theories to me anyway.

Christian scholars and teachers believe pretty much the earth is only 6,000 years old, or so. Based a lot on the verse “with God, one day is AS 1,000 years”, but of course, that would refer to the six day creation as Fred or someone said. That theory would suggest man has just been created for less than 1,000 years(6th day).

I DO BELIEVE scientists, when they say the earth is far more than 6,000 years of age. The first 2 verses in the Bible cover many thousands, or maybe millions of years, imo. That is called the “GAP THEORY”, also, in verse 2, the words “was void” should have been translated “became void”, according to the manuscripts of the Bible. Jeremiah
chapter 24:25-26, describes God saying "I saw the earth, and there was NO MAN. 26–The cities were broken down. Some say that was the end of the first earth age, some say future end of this age.

2 Peter 3:5-8 describes the world before and now, as two ages, and Revelation tells of an age yet to come. The FIRST AGE has no timetable, unless you believe Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are concurrent to continuing time. Then, the 6,000 year theory has a LITTLE accuracy, BUT, that theory is contradictory if you believe the creation took 6,000 years to complete.

Sooooo much speculation, but, as skinneej has pointed out, the created universe has far too much perfection to be RANDOMLY GENERATED.

SUMMARY, takes FAR more faith to not believe creation than to believe it, therefore, ‘easy way out’ some say to believe, but TRULY believing, and vocalizing that, is certainly NOT easy either.

“The big one’s still swimming, let’s go.”

quote:
Originally posted by SurfFishLife
quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel\That being said, intelligent design is really just an attempt to integrate religion into science. They should be separate, and absolutely not taught in schools.
Did you mean to say that religion should not be taught in schools? I'm guessing that you have no objection to science being taught in schools, so I'll proceed under the assumption that you meant to say that religion/creationism should not be taught in public schools. Am I right so far?

If you are against creationism being taught in public schools, are you also against macro-evolution and the origins of life being taught? The reason I ask is that all three (creationism, macro-evolution, and the origins of life) fall under the heading of Beliefs. Why should one set of beliefs be taught and not others? That sounds dangerously close to a governmental establishment of religion.

If you’re lucky enough to be fishing, you’re lucky enough.


So you want to teach all religions in school? That would get confusing since there's so many. How about Satanism, Paganism? Evolution is backed by science, religion is not. Equating the two is a lame attempt at clouding the lines between church and state. There is no church for evolutionists. Creationism is a result of man's desire to fill in the gaps of current knowledge.

Just say God made evolution and call it a day. Impossible to refute that.

quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel
quote:
Originally posted by SurfFishLife
quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel\That being said, intelligent design is really just an attempt to integrate religion into science. They should be separate, and absolutely not taught in schools.
Did you mean to say that religion should not be taught in schools? I'm guessing that you have no objection to science being taught in schools, so I'll proceed under the assumption that you meant to say that religion/creationism should not be taught in public schools. Am I right so far?

If you are against creationism being taught in public schools, are you also against macro-evolution and the origins of life being taught? The reason I ask is that all three (creationism, macro-evolution, and the origins of life) fall under the heading of Beliefs. Why should one set of beliefs be taught and not others? That sounds dangerously close to a governmental establishment of religion.

If you’re lucky enough to be fishing, you’re lucky enough.


So you want to teach all religions in school? That would get confusing since there's so many. How about Satanism, Paganism? Evolution is backed by science, religion is not. Equating the two is a lame attempt at clouding the lines between church and state. There is no church for evolutionists. Creationism is a result of man's desire to fill in the gaps of current knowledge.

Just say God made evolution and call it a day. Impossible to refute that.

quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel

The current iteration of the horseshoe crab has only been around for 20 million or so years. Even though it doesn’t look that different, it is. They have almost no natural predators. It’s unusual, but can be reasoned.


20 million years, the same time frame that pretty much ALL of the other body types were "evolving". No natural predators... So, since every other animal has natural predators, they are less fit to survive than the horse shoe crab and all other species should have died off as they trend towards the one perfect evolutionary form, the cockroach...

On third bowl of popcorn, ROFLH.

illigitimi non-carborundum . . .

quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel So you want to teach all religions in school? That would get confusing since there's so many. How about Satanism, Paganism? Evolution is backed by science, religion is not. Equating the two is a lame attempt at clouding the lines between church and state. There is no church for evolutionists. Creationism is a result of man's desire to fill in the gaps of current knowledge.

Just say God made evolution and call it a day. Impossible to refute that.


Evolution is a very very broad term, which is why I broke it down into macro-evolution and the origins of life. These are the points that fall under the heading of Beliefs. If we are to ban the teaching of beliefs/religion, let’s ban them all.

If you’re lucky enough to be fishing, you’re lucky enough.

Edaniel, I believe skinneej’s point is that creation is far more proven by science than evolution. I am not in this discussion except surface, so please direct your answer to skinneej to my comment. I, too, agree with skinneej’s opinion on creation being extremely accurate and provable.

“The big one’s still swimming, let’s go.”

quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel
quote:
Originally posted by SurfFishLife
quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel\That being said, intelligent design is really just an attempt to integrate religion into science. They should be separate, and absolutely not taught in schools.
Did you mean to say that religion should not be taught in schools? I'm guessing that you have no objection to science being taught in schools, so I'll proceed under the assumption that you meant to say that religion/creationism should not be taught in public schools. Am I right so far?

If you are against creationism being taught in public schools, are you also against macro-evolution and the origins of life being taught? The reason I ask is that all three (creationism, macro-evolution, and the origins of life) fall under the heading of Beliefs. Why should one set of beliefs be taught and not others? That sounds dangerously close to a governmental establishment of religion.

If you’re lucky enough to be fishing, you’re lucky enough.


So you want to teach all religions in school? That would get confusing since there's so many. How about Satanism, Paganism? Evolution is backed by science, religion is not. Equating the two is a lame attempt at clouding the lines between church and state. There is no church for evolutioni
quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel

Intelligent design implies a designer, ie a creator, ie a way for people to interject religion into science. Denying that is just being evasive. Leave religion at home.


Again, you are wrong… It does NOT imply religion. What if the designer was another race? What if it was aliens? What it if was humans from the future, another dimension, galaxy, etc? Again, you don’t even want to touch the thought of it because like all scientists you FIRST assume that it has to do with religion which automatically causes you to reject it. And that’s not very scientific of you. Also, how do you know that “religion” is not true? All I have seen from you so far is that you instantly rejet the “r word” without even looking at the facts. Not scientific at all…

quote:
There is 0 non-refutable scientific evidence for there being a "designer" other than people just not understanding or not wanting to believe evolution theory. Intelligent design relies on a lack of evidence for evolution, not evidence of intelligent design. You can't fill the holes in a theory with magic, and then call it your own theory, and then require it to be taught in science class.

You would have to watch the videos. You beliefs are based on the fact that you FIRST reject anything amazing or supernatural, and limit your understanding to the natural world. And, as you would realize, if you didn’t have others to think outside of the box for you, then you would have practially ZERO understanding of the universe, physics, relativity, gravity, atoms, dark matter, black holes, time travel, etc. You probably

The root of the entire intelligent design argument is that it seems hard, so someone else had to do it. Telling me I don’t understand the science when your evidence of thinking outside the box is black holes and dark matter implies your own lack of understanding. Those theories were both extrapolated when the math just didn’t add up. They fit into the equation, and made sense mathematically. They can be proven over and over again. Now, no one’s ever seen one, but they fit into the equation. They didn’t just stop what they were doing and say “welp, I guess there’s a designer out there holding it all together!”

quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel

The root of the entire intelligent design argument is that it seems hard, so someone else had to do it. Telling me I don’t understand the science when your evidence of thinking outside the box is black holes and dark matter implies your own lack of understanding. Those theories were both extrapolated when the math just didn’t add up. They fit into the equation, and made sense mathematically. They can be proven over and over again. Now, no one’s ever seen one, but they fit into the equation. They didn’t just stop what they were doing and say “welp, I guess there’s a designer out there holding it all together!”


Yet, Darwinism is NOT based on any equation and is FULL of gaps... Even Darwin knew and stated that his theory had many challenges that he could not explain.

You say that these theories were “extrapolated”. That’s non-sense. There are so many things that science assumed to be true for decades, or centuries, and then someone comes along to challenge the “natural” view with a new theory. Suddenly all of the equations get recalibrated and produce new results. Where were all of these theories before Einstein? Is light a wave or a particle? Hmmm… Both? Quantum mechanics says it changes when we observe it… Huh? I can’t wait to see how these theories are refined and corrected 100 years from now…

As far as aging goes, and any other theory for that matter; is based upon a certain amount of faith.
Medical Definition of THEORY

1: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <the theory and practice of medicine>

2: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena <a theory of organic evolution>?see atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory

3: a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation

But with carbon dating and other such aging methods… how can you prove that something is a million years old? Any conclusive scientific experiment must have a control. There are no comparative controls that can be absolutely verified to be that old. Any conclusions from these methods are based on faith that the extrapolations made from known controls are correct. So is your faith different from my faith?