'Intelligent design' debate back in court

[EnderAndrew]

no, it does not say that.  over and over again i tell you.  you do not understand.  we did not come from pond scum.  we came from primates on the order of 6 million years ago.  pond scum was 4.5 billion years ago.  this is not difficult.

On IQ tests they often have logic questions that go something like this:

 

If humanity is part of life on this planet, and all life on this planet came from pond scum, then....

 

humans came from pond scum!

 

You keep trying to correct me on various issues, and tell me what science teaches, but what you claim actually contradicts what every biology and science text book I've read says. You also don't seem to understand the two types of evolution, the phylogenic tree, or the scientific process.

 

You tell me to lay off the insults, but you interjected initially telling me that I had no clue what I was talking about and how I refuted myself.

 

Too bad you were exposing your own ignorance of the subject matter. I'm always up for intelligent discourse on a subject. You're just not offering it.

which is evidence of... our evolution.  other species failing to evolve as we have simply means they did not evolve.  nothing more.

Not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you flip-flop with every single post.

 

You insisted the reason that apes don't have culture is that you only evolve when it is necessary for survival, and since culture isn't needed for survival, they didn't evolve to have it.

 

Then you say evolution only occurs from random mutation.

 

Then you go back to survival.

 

Now you're saying that humans evolved to have culture.

 

Which is it?

 

With VoloLogic is intentional. He knows better and enjoys baiting people. I sincerely believe that you don't know any better. And when I demonstate with simple and clear logic how your statements refute each other, you just keep spouting it.

why does every creature have to evolve the same way we did.  also, your statement directly implies that none will in the future.  that we cannot know.

You're the one insisting their are animals advanced like us, comparing them to human evolution, and now you wonder why I'm asking which animals evolved like us?

 

Are you not following your own arguements?

 

Seriously, I think we should stop here. After all, you didn't do the homework I assigned you.

[Commissar]

no, it does not say that.  over and over again i tell you.  you do not understand.  we did not come from pond scum.  we came from primates on the order of 6 million years ago.  pond scum was 4.5 billion years ago.  this is not difficult.

On IQ tests they often have logic questions that go something like this:

 

If humanity is part of life on this planet, and all life on this planet came from pond scum, then....

 

humans came from pond scum!

 

You keep trying to correct me on various issues, and tell me what science teaches, but what you claim actually contradicts what every biology and science text book I've read says. You also don't seem to understand the two types of evolution, the phylogenic tree, or the scientific process.

 

You tell me to lay off the insults, but you interjected initially telling me that I had no clue what I was talking about and how I refuted myself.

 

Too bad you were exposing your own ignorance of the subject matter. I'm always up for intelligent discourse on a subject. You're just not offering it.

which is evidence of... our evolution.  other species failing to evolve as we have simply means they did not evolve.  nothing more.

Not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you flip-flop with every single post.

 

You insisted the reason that apes don't have culture is that you only evolve when it is necessary for survival, and since culture isn't needed for survival, they didn't evolve to have it.

 

Then you say evolution only occurs from random mutation.

 

Then you go back to survival.

 

Now you're saying that humans evolved to have culture.

 

Which is it?

 

With VoloLogic is intentional. He knows better and enjoys baiting people. I sincerely believe that you don't know any better. And when I demonstate with simple and clear logic how your statements refute each other, you just keep spouting it.

why does every creature have to evolve the same way we did.  also, your statement directly implies that none will in the future.  that we cannot know.

You're the one insisting their are animals advanced like us, comparing them to human evolution, and now you wonder why I'm asking which animals evolved like us?

 

Are you not following your own arguements?

 

Seriously, I think we should stop here. After all, you didn't do the homework I assigned you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, to address your last point first, Taks stated that there were animals with almost our complexity, not ones that advanced precisely like us. I can understand that you're upset, but that really is just putting words in his mouth.

 

I haven't seen him flopping from survival to random to survival to random, but I will say this; mutations beneficial for survival are passed on, and oftentimes mutations that are not necessarily beneficial for survival, but are not detrimental to it, are passed on as well.

 

And yes, all life on this planet does share a common ancestor, according to the theory of evolution. I'm sorry that you're not fond of that idea, and no one's infringing your right to believe in Big Beard Man creating you, we're simply not going to let you teach it in a science class, because it's not science, for the reasons repeated ad nauseum in this thread.

 

By the way, in your earlier attempts at refuting gravity, were you angling for the Theory of Intelligent Falling intentionally or unintentionally? If it was intentional, I declare it a master stroke of humor; if it was unintentional, I declare it a master stroke of humor, too, but more in a, "We're not laughing with you, but at you," kind of way.

[Commissar]

The fundamental problem is that intelligent design, quite simply, is not science.  Science never, ever provides answers without proof; intelligent design provides answers without proof.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

while your statement is in principle correct, you are misusing the terms proof and evidence.

Woops. You're right. My bad.

[taks]

By the way, in your earlier attempts at refuting gravity, were you angling for the Theory of Intelligent Falling intentionally or unintentionally?  If it was intentional, I declare it a master stroke of humor; if it was unintentional, I declare it a master stroke of humor, too, but more in a, "We're not laughing with you, but at you," kind of way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually, ender is apparently smart enough that he can summarily dismiss both BBT and evolution in one fell swoop. it does not matter the enormity of study that has been poured into both, with scant evidence contrary to either theory. these two scientific theories are probably the most studied and written about in history. few other compare with regards to agreement, either. somehow, he woke up one day and saw it all, and decided everyone else, the 99% of the scientific community that has poured their entire lives into respective subjects, were all wrong. they just don't get it apparently. heck, he took two classes and got an A on a paper.

 

coupled with all the insults and outright fabrications, keep in mind this is the guy you all are voting to be moderator. we got to see a real glimpse of his character today. frankly, i'm appalled, and disappointed.

 

taks

 

edit: not only the above, be he also accused all of these scientists of perpetrating some sort of massive fraud on the public due to their "bad science." that's the worst part of it. not only are they (we) all wrong, we're also out to deceive by ignoring contrary evidence. unbelievable.

Edited September 30, 2005 by taks

[taks]

oh, also, w/regard to my earlier concession about forced adaptation, i recant. it is not likely and the current body of evidence suggests a theory known as punctuated equilibrium, caused by none other than our friend mutation.

 

taks

[WITHTEETH]

I see some of us think that science isn't backed by science now?

 

Like i said before, show us A POSITIVE PROOF that ID is plausible.

Not something like "Well evolution is wrong so ID must be right!"

Edited September 30, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Hurlshort]

I think people are trying to make the argument that both evolution and ID requires leaps of faith. Evolution happens, clearly, but it's a very big jump from pond scum to humankind and there are gaps that haven't been filled.

 

Honestly I don't care either way. I do think that students are being underestimated. Give them the information in an unbiased forum and they are quite capable of making up thier own minds. Kids are open minded, it's the adults that suck.

[LoneWolf16]

I think people are trying to make the argument that both evolution and ID requires leaps of faith.  Evolution happens, clearly, but it's a very big jump from pond scum to humankind and there are gaps that haven't been filled. 

 

Honestly I don't care either way.  I do think that students are being underestimated.  Give them the information in an unbiased forum and they are quite capable of making up thier own minds.  Kids are open minded, it's the adults that suck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doesn't it start at home though?

 

Generally, if your parents have taught you something all throughout your childhood, up to the point where you enter school...I'd think there wouldn't be much "open-mindedness" though I do agree that kids are more adaptable than adults in that field... Indoctrination at an early age

[Shryke]

the creationists should try providing some evidence supporting ID rather than just trying to discredit the theory of evolution

[kirottu]

Actually I thought about this and came into conclusion that there is a point in intelligent design. Evolution is random mutations that are passed on to next generation and females of the species choose who gets to pass on their genes.

 

So intelligent design = females

 

Almost too simple.

[Commissar]

I think people are trying to make the argument that both evolution and ID requires leaps of faith.  Evolution happens, clearly, but it's a very big jump from pond scum to humankind and there are gaps that haven't been filled. 

 

Honestly I don't care either way.  I do think that students are being underestimated.  Give them the information in an unbiased forum and they are quite capable of making up thier own minds.  Kids are open minded, it's the adults that suck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once again, no one's saying that kids shouldn't be able to have a choice between the two theories.

 

We're saying that since intelligent design isn't science, no matter how much you might like it, it should never, ever be taught in a science class.

[Laozi]

If people are so worried about the "spiritual" well being of highschool kids why not start teaching philosophy in school?

[Shryke]

you can take philosophy in high school

 

well, in my school we could...

[julianw]

My high school still had classes where you color pictures. Very popular course, btw.

[Hurlshort]

Education in the US has changed a great deal over the last decade. Each state is required to have comprehensive grade level standards, and although not every district does a good job of enforcing them, they do give a blueprint for a well-rounded education. The entire debate is that Intelligent Design is on one of these state standards. I'm not is science, so I'm not going to go look it up, but it'd be interesting to hear how it is worded.

[taks]

the creationists should try providing some evidence supporting ID rather than just trying to discredit the theory of evolution

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

they never can. it is impossible. god is untestable. hawking has recently even stated that a full understanding of the makeup (the fabric, so to speak) of the universe may never be known. the reasons are along the lines of the goedel's incompleteness theorem concepts. he did not seem too upset.

 

taks

[WITHTEETH]

I'm fine with Creationism being taught in private schools.