Americans Favour Creationism Over Evolution

[Hobbit]

WTF? You people are killing me. If ID is not recognized by science by the scientific community then it's not. It's just that fucking simple. Why would someone want to argue a fact? That's insanity

And who exactly is this "scientific community." That's right, there's no official "scientific community." The "scientific community" is a large group of people with a few set standards, none of which include unproven theories. In fact, proving or disproving unproven theories is what they do. Now, when you say that the "scientific community" is set on evolution and that's that, you are stating an obvious fallacy, seeing as how this 'community' is made up of millions of people who disagree on anything and everything unproven. They even bet subscriptions of Playboy over whose theories are correct. Now, the majority of scientists who field of study encompasses origin of modern life, evolution is the predominant theory. However, the entire scientific community has not accepted evolution because it is unproven. Therefore, evolution is NOT accepted by the scientific community, just predominant. Intelligent design, an alternative theory, is quickly gaining ground. It is accepted by a large portion of the scientific community, namely those who see too many holes in evolution and those who are religious. It is still not the predominant theory, but has gained more ground on evolution than you know, or at least more than you're willing to admit.

Now, having said that, your statement that it's absolute fact that the scientific community has accepted evolution, but not ID is just like saying that the world is Asian, not White. Sure, the majority of the people on the planet are Asian, but that doesn't make the whole world so. It's also like saying the USMB community voted for Bush, not Kerry. Once again, that may be true of the majority, but not the whole. So stop trying to inflate yourself. You're full of crap.

ID also does not require a spiritual being, just a being or culture that has a great enough understanding of the basic physics and chemistry of life to create organisms as complex as we are. This being or culture need not be spiritual, merely very, very, very, very, very, very smart.

As for your analogy, I feel like I'm having Ray Charles try to describe a sunset to me, and he keeps saying the word "green."

 

[Powerman]

"It is accepted by a large portion of the scientific community, namely those who see too many holes in evolution and those who are religious. It is still not the predominant theory, but has gained more ground on evolution than you know, or at least more than you're willing to admit."

You are either ignorant or you like to tell lies because this is complete bullshit.

 

[no1tovote4]

Bullshit. I haven't posted anything on this thread that is not true. The scientific community does not recognize ID as science. That is a fact. I know some of you might live in a dream world where the scientific community is 50 50 on the issue of evolution and ID but evolution is the best and the only theory that explains our existence. There isn't even a close second in the scientific community. The sooner you can accept that simple fact the better.

Now that we have cleared that up(hopefully) let's be rational. Every scientific theory has it's holes and if people want the holes of theories taught in class then that's perfectly fine. But let's make it every theory and not just the ones that conflict with Genesis. Does that sound fair?

Less than 1000 years ago the scientific community had the flat-world theory going and believed the world was the center of the Universe and any other theory was garbage to them and would often get the scientist turned into the the Church and burned at the stake, thus they were able to discount competing theory. Today that is done by mocking them and stating things like, "The scientific community doesn't recognize ID as science."

That the scientific community doesn't largely recognize another Theory doesn't make it "not science" nor does their recognition of a theory make it irrefutable. In fact, scientists have been wrong more than they have been right in the past and will continue to be in the future.

 

[Hobbit]

Less than 1000 years ago the scientific community had the flat-world theory going and believed the world was the center of the Universe and any other theory was garbage to them and would often get the scientist turned into the the Church and burned at the stake, thus they were able to discount competing theory. Today that is done by mocking them and stating things like, "The scientific community doesn't recognize ID as science."

That the scientific community doesn't largely recognize another Theory doesn't make it "not science" nor does their recognition of a theory make it irrefutable. In fact, scientists have been wrong more than they have been right in the past and will continue to be in the future.

Exactly. The process of science necessitates that any unproven theory be viewed with extreme scrutiny, since science is all based on prior science and basing your work on an unproven theory is a house of cards.

50 years ago, tonsils were good for only one thing...getting infected. Everyone knew this was a fact, so tonsils were always removed at the earliest possible opportunity. In fact, my mom's tonsils were fine when they were taken out. She had infected adenoids, and while the doctors were in there, they thought, "Why not? They're only good for getting infected anyway." For years after that, my mom caught every cold and flu bug that came along. We now know that tonsils are one of the first lines of defense against respiratory infection.

10 years ago, the appendix was the same way. Due to location, it wasn't removed frivilously, but was still viewed as entirely useless and only good for causing problems. This was a known fact taught every day in schools. I remember my teacher telling me that the appendix digested cellulose in herbivores, but in humans, was an 'evolutionary leftover.' We now know that the appendix is key in filtering toxins from the body, which solved the age old question about why an infected appendix was so deadly.

Today, it is apparently true that there a veins in your legs that aren't really used for much, except in open heart surgury. I wonder if that will be the same story 50 or ever 10 years from now.

See, calling it science doesn't make it true. I can still remember when aerodynamisists were baffled by bumblebees. According to their understanding of aerodynamics, bumblebees were incapable of flight since thier wings were incapable of creating the lift necessary to lift their bulk. It was obvious that they could fly, but until recently, the how was completely unknown.

 

[Powerman]

Less than 1000 years ago the scientific community had the flat-world theory going and believed the world was the center of the Universe and any other theory was garbage to them and would often get the scientist turned into the the Church and burned at the stake, thus they were able to discount competing theory. Today that is done by mocking them and stating things like, "The scientific community doesn't recognize ID as science."

That the scientific community doesn't largely recognize another Theory doesn't make it "not science" nor does their recognition of a theory make it irrefutable. In fact, scientists have been wrong more than they have been right in the past and will continue to be in the future.

God damn it would you fucking listen already. It's not science because it isn't falsifiable. Since there is no scientific or otherwise physical proof or any proof whatsoever of an intelligent being that created us then there is no way it is science. If something is not falsifiable it isn't science. I could easily claim that we were all created 5 minutes ago and had memories implanted into our brains to make it seem otherwise and you couldn't prove me wrong because it isn't a falsifiable theory. Same with ID. It's not science because there is no proof whatsoever for any of it and it is not falsifiable. Fuck it I might as well be talking to a brick wall. If you can't get that concept already then I don't know why I'm even talking to you.

 

[no1tovote4]

God damn it would you fucking listen already.

Ahem....

Listen to yourself. You have already, previously in this thread to be exact, admitted that some ID scientists are practicing science when they work to disprove this particular theory.

It's not science because it isn't falsifiable. Since there is no scientific or otherwise physical proof or any proof whatsoever of an intelligent being that created us then there is no way it is science. If something is not falsifiable it isn't science. I could easily claim that we were all created 5 minutes ago and had memories implanted into our brains to make it seem otherwise and you couldn't prove me wrong because it isn't a falsifiable theory. Same with ID. It's not science because there is no proof whatsoever for any of it and it is not falsifiable. Fuck it I might as well be talking to a brick wall. If you can't get that concept already then I don't know why I'm even talking to you.

You don't even remember who you are talking to or what they have stated previously as shown by your unreasonable ideology stating something as fact that you already admitted to not being fact previously.

Previously I gave you rep for the way you handled yourself in our discussion, and the high-mindedness you displayed. Now I wish I could take it back as you resort to cursing and repeating the same argument and demonstrate a marked ability to forget what you stated. Even after you admitted in the past that the scientific process does include those that work to disprove theory through experimentation, and that some ID believers work within the scientific method.

What an ignoramus...

Can't even remember who you are speaking to or what you have stated previously.

 

[Powerman]

Ahem....

Listen to yourself. You have already, previously in this thread to be exact, admitted that some ID scientists are practicing science when they work to disprove this particular theory.

Correct. That part of it can be science. The premise of ID however is not science. If you understand that and agree with me then we can move on. Until then we're stuck because you are accepting fiction as fact.

Previously I gave you rep for the way you handled yourself in our discussion, and the high-mindedness you displayed. Now I wish I could take it back as you resort to cursing and repeating the same argument and demonstrate a marked ability to forget what you stated. Even after you admitted in the past that the scientific process does include those that work to disprove theory through experimentation, and that some ID believers work within the scientific method.

I know what I'm talking about here and you are just ignoring the basic facts of things. I'm repeating myself because you claim that ID is science when only part of ID is science. If they are trying to disprove a theory using the scientific method then that part of it is science. But, the premise behind ID itself is not science. so even if they do good science that can disprove certain parts of evolution ID as a whole isn't science.

Let me give you a simple example:

Doing work to try to disprove a theory using the scientific method=science

Arbitrarily claiming with no proof whatsoever that a supreme invisible being or alien life form created everything !=science

 

[no1tovote4]

Correct. That part of it can be science. The premise of ID however is not science. If you understand that and agree with me then we can move on. Until then we're stuck because you are accepting fiction as fact.




I know what I'm talking about here and you are just ignoring the basic facts of things. I'm repeating myself because you claim that ID is science when only part of ID is science. If they are trying to disprove a theory using the scientific method then that part of it is science. But, the premise behind ID itself is not science. so even if they do good science that can disprove certain parts of evolution ID as a whole isn't science.

Let me give you a simple example:

Doing work to try to disprove a theory using the scientific method=science

Arbitrarily claiming with no proof whatsoever that a supreme invisible being or alien life form created everything !=science

Once again, it isn't a scientific theory because of what you state. That doesn't mean that it in no way is scientific. Just as with any Hypothesis, the attempt to define and create tests is the object that makes it become a theory. Testing in either way can make the work scientific, while still not defining it as a theory.

The simple statement, "It is not science." is different than the statement, "It is at least partially science." and undermines your credibility.

Debasing yourself and getting angry to the point of cursing and calling names is childish and discredits your own argument.

Something that is at least partially science cannot by definition "not be science" at all.

 

[Powerman]

Once again, it isn't a scientific theory because of what you state. That doesn't mean that it in no way is scientific. Just as with any Hypothesis, the attempt to define and create tests is the object that makes it become a theory. Testing in either way can make the work scientific, while still not defining it as a theory.

The simple statement, "It is not science." is different than the statement, "It is at least partially science." and undermines your credibility.

Debasing yourself and getting angry to the point of cursing and calling names is childish and discredits your own argument.

Something that is at least partially science cannot by definition "not be science" at all.

It is partially science because they do scientific work within it....but the entire premise of intelligent design is not science. Do you understand that?

 

[no1tovote4]

It is partially science because they do scientific work within it....but the entire premise of intelligent design is not science. Do you understand that?

Once again, I agree that it isn't scientific theory, but not that it isn't science. As I stated previously, science is more than just Theory. Attempting to define and create a Theory is science, attempting to find ways to test your hypothesis is science, testing to see if a theory can be disproven is science.

At this point this is not a Theory, at another point, if they can come up with ways to test it may be. Not a theory does not equal not scientific.

 

[Powerman]

" Not a theory does not equal not scientific."

I've never stated such a thing. I'm not saying it isn't scientific because it isn't a theory. I'm saying it isn't scientific because the premise of it is based on something that there is absolutely ZERO proof for. By the way ID is considered a theory it's just not considered a "scientific" theory for the reasons I've listed about 15 times already.

 

[manu1959]

There is nothing wrong with my logic. It's quite sharp actually. I have no problem defending my logical skills. The fact that you disagree with my logic doesn't bother me in the least bit because I am confident that my logical skills are more polished than yours.

it appears you agree with yourself then....

 

[manu1959]

I'm all ears. What facts am I ignoring?

the fact that evolution is not creation by defininition.....the leap in logic you will take from this statement will be amussing to say the least

 

[no1tovote4]

" Not a theory does not equal not scientific."

I've never stated such a thing. I'm not saying it isn't scientific because it isn't a theory. I'm saying it isn't scientific because the premise of it is based on something that there is absolutely ZERO proof for. By the way ID is considered a theory it's just not considered a "scientific" theory for the reasons I've listed about 15 times already.

Forgive me, I should have been more precise. Not a Scientific Theory does not equate to not science at all. At the point where they are at with their Theory they still need to come up with a testable hypothesis and show evidence that the hypothesis stands up to scrutiny, at that point they can call it scientific theory. However attempting to work out ways to test an hypothesis is as much science as first thinking up an hypothesis, just as testing to disprove a different theory is also science.

Just because it doesn't meet the criteria of Scientific Theory does not mean that people that work towards such a goal are not working in science. At some point every theory was at this same level, some it was easier to come up with testable hypotheses some as difficult.

 

[manu1959]

"It is accepted by a large portion of the scientific community, namely those who see too many holes in evolution and those who are religious. It is still not the predominant theory, but has gained more ground on evolution than you know, or at least more than you're willing to admit."

You are either ignorant or you like to tell lies because this is complete bullshit.

a large protion of the scientific community once belived the world was flat and put to death those that opposed them....a large protion of the scientific community once said that atoms were the smallest builiding blocks of things are.

 

[Powerman]

the fact that evolution is not creation by defininition.....the leap in logic you will take from this statement will be amussing to say the least

Say what? Creation and evolution aren't the same thing but they aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. Maybe you could make yourself a little more clear.

 

[Powerman]

a large protion of the scientific community once belived the world was flat and put to death those that opposed them....a large protion of the scientific community once said that atoms were the smallest builiding blocks of things are.

Yes. The Catholic Church was the people putting people to death actually. Of course theories would be much more likely to be wrong with the primitive understandings most people had at those times. We know those things to be wrong because more advanced theories proved them to be wrong. With ID what you have is Creationism being repackaged as something else. So in this case we have a theory that has been obsoleted by evolution trying to disprove evolution essentially. I realize that creationism and ID are different but the premise of ID is just as primitive and lacking in substance. We aren't talking about a theory that is scientifically more advanced than evolution here. We are talking about something that is not even considered science because the premise is based on something for which there is absolutely ZERO proof.

 

[no1tovote4]

"So in this case we have a theory that has been obsoleted by evolution trying to disprove evolution essentially."

This statement is not science as it cannot be tested.

Creationism has not been obsolesced by evolution. As stated previously it may very well be the tool with which the Creator used to make complex life forms.

 

[no1tovote4]

Yes. The Catholic Church was the people putting people to death actually. Of course theories would be much more likely to be wrong with the primitive understandings most people had at those times. We know those things to be wrong because more advanced theories proved them to be wrong. With ID what you have is Creationism being repackaged as something else. So in this case we have a theory that has been obsoleted by evolution trying to disprove evolution essentially. I realize that creationism and ID are different but the premise of ID is just as primitive and lacking in substance. We aren't talking about a theory that is scientifically more advanced than evolution here. We are talking about something that is not even considered science because the premise is based on something for which there is absolutely ZERO proof.

In the future some guy will be typing how primitive we were in science at this time. Why is it that every generation always thinks they are this far || from making the final discovery that will give us all knowledge?

And once again you mention proof, scientific method does not provide proof. It provides evidence but not proof. You cannot prove a scientific theory unless you are able to test it in infinite detail and under every possible condition. Therefore scientific method does not go beyond the Theory.

 

[Powerman]

In the future some guy will be typing how primitive we were in science at this time. Why is it that every generation always thinks they are this far || from making the final discovery that will give us all knowledge?

And once again you mention proof, scientific method does not provide proof. It provides evidence but not proof. You cannot prove a scientific theory unless you are able to test it in infinite detail and under every possible condition. Therefore scientific method does not go beyond the Theory.

You're parsing words here. OK how about this factual statement. There is absolutely no evidence that we were created by a supreme or alien life form.