Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[Powerman]

You mean the "ID crowd" as in that intelligent design is a science? By dictionary definition, it can be called a science. It falls within the definition of:



Is it part of what is accepted by the "science community" as "science"? No. The science community accepts only those theories originated within, and can be explained by the approved "scientific method." That being what can be expalined within the limit of Man's intellect.

I have no problem with that. I have a problem when science denies anything it cannot explain, and/or creates its own borderline ridiculous hypotheses, and attempts to use these to refute ID.

The fact is, anything that goes beyond Man's ability to explain within the limits of Man's intellect/senses is as much based on faith as ANY religion.

What hypotheses are you talking about that you claim are ridiculous? And no hyphothesis was formulated to refute ID. ID was formulated to attempt to challenge evolution. It has failed miserably. Evolution is a fact. It's not even debatable.

 

[Gunny]

What hypotheses are you talking about that you claim are ridiculous? And no hyphothesis was formulated to refute ID. ID was formulated to attempt to challenge evolution. It has failed miserably. Evolution is a fact. It's not even debatable.

I did not say ANY hypothesis was formulated to refute ID. I said people attempt to use them to refute ID/Christianity.

When you define evolution as the continuing change of life to adapt to its continually changing environment, I don't know many people who do debate THAT. That is what it is.

When you use the term evolution to describe Man being descended from apes, then you are correct .... there is no debate. It's bullshit. There's a reason no one has found "the missing link" ...... there isn't one. The evidence supports ME, not you.

 

[Powerman]

I did not say ANY hypothesis was formulated to refute ID. I said people attempt to use them to refute ID/Christianity.

When you define evolution as the continuing change of life to adapt to its continually changing environment, I don't know many people who do debate THAT. That is what it is.

When you use the term evolution to describe Man being descended from apes, then you are correct .... there is no debate. It's bullshit. There's a reason no one has found "the missing link" ...... there isn't one. The evidence supports ME, not you.

Well that's because you are ignorant on what evolution actually is. It claims that we have common ancestors with apes. Not that we descended from apes ourselves.

And since no one has found the missing link then that makes it false? Maybe with your extensive knowledge of the evolution of man you can tell me between which 2 alleged species this missing link is.

Let me ask you this. Do you know where your great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents are buried? Probably not. But we do know that they existed. But by your logic since we haven't found where they live yet they must not have existed so your family tree doesn't go back that far.

And as for this snippet:

When you define evolution as the continuing change of life to adapt to its continually changing environment, I don't know many people who do debate THAT. That is what it is.

Almost every ID proponent on this board would disagree with you completely.

 

[Annie]

Well that's because you are ignorant on what evolution actually is. It claims that we have common ancestors with apes. Not that we descended from apes ourselves.

And since no one has found the missing link then that makes it false? Maybe with your extensive knowledge of the evolution of man you can tell me between which 2 alleged species this missing link is.

Let me ask you this. Do you know where your great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents are buried? Probably not. But we do know that they existed. But by your logic since we haven't found where they live yet they must not have existed so your family tree doesn't go back that far.

And as for this snippet:



Almost every ID proponent on this board would disagree with you completely.

I'd venture to say that there are fewer ID 'proponents' here than you think. You seem unable to understand the difference between discussion and beliefs. I for one subscribe to evolution, I think ID can be addressed, though not in the science curriculum below the collegiate level.

You are the one wedded to your 'beliefs' and with such a closed mind as to be making opinion into fact. Bah, you go so far as to advocate shutting off any discussion, even at the professional level.

 

[Powerman]

I'd venture to say that there are fewer ID 'proponents' here than you think. You seem unable to understand the difference between discussion and beliefs. I for one subscribe to evolution, I think ID can be addressed, though not in the science curriculum below the collegiate level.

You are the one wedded to your 'beliefs' and with such a closed mind as to be making opinion into fact. Bah, you go so far as to advocate shutting off any discussion, even at the professional level.

But evolution IS an observable fact. That's not just my opinion or someone elses opinion. It's on par with gravity in the scientific community. We know for a fact that it happens.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

But evolution IS an observable fact. That's not just my opinion or someone elses opinion. It's on par with gravity in the scientific community. We know for a fact that it happens.

Micro evolution, yes. Macro is still a theory, and most certainly not a fact.

 

[Powerman]

Micro evolution, yes. Macro is still a theory, and most certainly not a fact.

That is simply not true.

First off macro-evolution is a term made up by creation scientists to convince you that it doesn't happen. They know they'll never convince people that micro-evolution doesn't happen so they try to split the 2 up and save face. Of course they are hoping no one does their research.

The correct term for "macro-evoultion" is in fact speciation. nd speciation has been observed in nature.

I suppose if you wanted to you could pretend that speciation has never been observed but is most certainly has.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

That is simply not true.

First off macro-evolution is a term made up by creation scientists to convince you that it doesn't happen. They know they'll never convince people that micro-evolution doesn't happen so they try to split the 2 up and save face. Of course they are hoping no one does their research.

The correct term for "macro-evoultion" is in fact speciation. nd speciation has been observed in nature.

I suppose if you wanted to you could pretend that speciation has never been observed but is most certainly has.

ok, where?

 

[Powerman]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

I'll find more info on this later. I need to get to bed. I've got my last final in the morning

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, you're not a liar. Don't confuse Powerman's fishhooks with my questions. Do you remember any non-science topics that you covered as part of the curriculum in your science class? I'm just looking for some sort of an example as to what you mean by non-science things being taught in science class, that's all.

No, I didnt confuse you with him, I was being facitous.

Yea, actually, I remember virtually all my classes all got off subject from time to time.

I just dont see any law that says if you go off subject a bit, then suddenly the class is a total failure. PM is just so hell bent on smashing anything religous. I think he has had a bad experience somewhere

Whether or not ID belongs in science class is up to the parents. I have kids, if I want ID taught to them, or mentioned in science class, that my business, and not his fucking business.

He refuses to acknowledge logical deduction as a means of determining truths or evidence, or facts, yet he does it daily. We all do. Its impossible not to. The LAW does it, science does it,

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Shouldn't you know such things off of the top of your head if your making such claims? You have enough time to respond to everything else I post but you can't back up a simple claim you made?

Well, I dont know what bug climbed up your ass, but if you are trying to call me a liar on this again, you are simply wrong. And I know that for a fact, you can only speculate. Its pretty rude to call someone that in what is suppose to be a civil discussion, but I see its not all that difficult to piss you off. If you were so sure of your posistion, I wouldnt think you would get so pissed off so easily.

so what if I dont answer some of your posts, or I cant think of anything right off hand, hell, I havent been in a class in years, lots of em, like 25.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

What makes you wrong is that you attempt to refute religion with theory, calling it fact. Your problem is not that "fucking idiots on this board can't understand simple concepts" ..... it's that you call anyone who does not agree that you are right where religion is concerned "fucking idiots."

Yet, I have not ONCE heard a "fucking idiot" tell you your immortal soul is going to burn in Hell for eternity for your misguided beliefs.

THAT is the real difference between Christians and athiests ..... we STILL have hope that you will wake up; while, we are relegated to the "fucking idiot" heap.

And THAT is about as much of a sermon as you're going to get from me.

c'mon now, even a fucking idiot can do better than that. hahahhaha

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Gunny with all due respect when I meant people are idiots I didn't mean so because of their beliefs. I meant so because they refuse to accept simple facts. I'm talking about the ID crowd. And not all of them are idiots. But some of them are. I'll be polite and not mention any names.

why start being polite now?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

What hypotheses are you talking about that you claim are ridiculous? And no hyphothesis was formulated to refute ID. ID was formulated to attempt to challenge evolution. It has failed miserably. Evolution is a fact. It's not even debatable.

Bull shit.

It has only failed in your mind, you seem to think, if you think it, then its fact. It dont work like that sonny. Sometimes life just simply contradicts science, logic and anything else. I have heard scientists often exclaim extreme surprise, because their "supposed facts" have been found to be in error. You shouldnt think your godlike facts are so irrefutable. Speaking of being closed minded and unscientific. Science should be open to ALL possibilities. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU, OR EVEN THE CURRENT CROP OF SCIENTISTS to decide what science can or cant accept as possibilities as long as it hasnt been proven to be not true?

It seems todays crop of scientists are getting a anti religion bent to them, much the same, but on the opposite side of the spectrum of the pro religous scientists of many centuries ago who let incorrect Biblical interpetations not allow them to believe some things that evidence was showing to be true.

Now you, and some scientists seem to think your definition of science and the scientific method are some godlike monolith we should all pray to.

science, and scientists can be wrong sometimes.

Irreducable complexity PROVES life, biological life as we know it, COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY COME INTO EXISTENCE ON ITS OWN.

Thats a simple fact Jack, why cant you get that through your thick skull. I keep bashing it into your head, and you just dont get it, your "fucking idiot" hahahahhahha
I

 

[LuvRPgrl]

But evolution IS an observable fact. That's not just my opinion or someone elses opinion. It's on par with gravity in the scientific community. We know for a fact that it happens.

BULLSHIT. TOTAL BULLSHIT

Its not even close to being on par with gravity.

EVERYBODY experiences gravity every day. We all see it in action. SORRY< I have never seen speciation, NEVER. OK?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

BULLSHIT. TOTAL BULLSHIT

Its not even close to being on par with gravity.

EVERYBODY experiences gravity every day. We all see it in action. SORRY< I have never seen speciation, NEVER. OK?

Please Read Charles Pierce "Idiot America" published in Esquire Magazine

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That is simply not true.

First off macro-evolution is a term made up by creation scientists to convince you that it doesn't happen. They know they'll never convince people that micro-evolution doesn't happen so they try to split the 2 up and save face. Of course they are hoping no one does their research.

The correct term for "macro-evoultion" is in fact speciation. nd speciation has been observed in nature.

I suppose if you wanted to you could pretend that speciation has never been observed but is most certainly has.

BULLSHIT again.

"evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). "

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#theorytobetested

and neither macro, nor micro prove the origins of the first organism.

 

[Hobbit]

Please Read Charles Pierce "Idiot America" published in Esquire Magazine

That link goes to Microsoft in my browser. I also have a feeling that an article called "Greetings From Idiot America" is going to be another condescending crack at middle America.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Please Read Charles Pierce "Idiot America" published in Esquire Magazine

your link doesnt work

 

[Hagbard Celine]

BULLSHIT again.

"evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). "

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#theorytobetested

and neither macro, nor micro prove the origins of the first organism.

So Luvergirl, I'm confused about what exactly your position is. Obviously you've chosen to think that evolution is not fact, ignoring the findings of nearly every scientist on the planet. So how do you explain our existence? Are you a creationist?

What is your level of education?