QuoteBecause you [falsely] accuse me of believing Evolution, a theory that scientists constantly revise and evolve, without any room for doubt, even when ID has not evolved in the past five thousand years?

Once again, I should point out that you are conflating Intelligent Design with Creationism. That - and your little aside about "five thousand years" - immediate tells me that it isn't either theory that you find "disagreeable", but Creationism's association with religion. I could point out that according to Intelligent Design, evolution might be some superior beings way of organizing what ever they wanted to create on this world, and of course Intelligent Design deals with first causes which evolution doesn't.  But then again, why should I attempt to introduce a new idea into your closed mind.

Quote from: tbone0106 on June 12, 2012, 08:46:52 PM
Oh, Christ, I'm being attacked with punctuation. Give me a second or two to piss my pants. Okay, moving on...

I apologize for calling you T-Bone in another thread. It was heartless punctuation on my part, for which I am deeply remorseful.

Quote from: mdgiles on June 15, 2012, 09:11:35 AM
Once again, I should point out that you are conflating Intelligent Design with Creationism.

Even their supporters use the two interchangeably.  Show me any difference between the two other than semantics.

QuoteThat - and your little aside about "five thousand years" - immediate tells me that it isn't either theory that you find "disagreeable", but Creationism's association with religion.

Your ad hominem falls flat.  My issue with creationism/ID is that there is no scientifically quantifiable evidence supporting it.

QuoteI could point out that according to Intelligent Design, evolution might be some superior beings way of organizing what ever they wanted to create on this world,

This is not the mainstream definition of ID.  This is not what they want taught in public classrooms.

Quote
and of course Intelligent Design deals with first causes which evolution doesn't.

Nope.  Explain where the intelligent designer came from.  The theory bends Occam's Razor over and violates it anally; in order to explain the existence of a finitely complex entity, you insert in a sapient, omnipotent, infinitely complex entity and fail to explain it.  You replace one unknown with a ridiculously larger one.

And your objection is irrelevant to Evolution theory.  There is no first cause needed for it.  You're confusing it with Big Bang cosmology.

Quote
  But then again, why should I attempt to introduce a new idea into your closed mind.

You know, creationism/ID has remained unchanged for 5000 years, and operates under a book they believe is unchangeable, immutable and perfect, and you accuse me of having a close mind?   

Evolution evolves.  Scientists find new data and modify their theory to fit the facts.  Creationists come up with a theory, and then keep it the same forever.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 15, 2012, 08:53:52 AM
Alright, Taxed.  How do I put this.



You correctly point out that Evolution theory is incomplete. 


What you do not understand is that this isn't an either/or proposition.  No theory is ever considered entirely unchallengeable and complete.  You're assuming that, because both Evolution and ID are not 100% conclusive, both should be carried with equal weight. 

Once again, it is not an either/or.  If you were to scale the level of completeness:


[basic] Laws of Thermodynamics
Obama's life
Lincoln's life
Caesar's life
Evolution theory / gravitational theory

911
Quantum Theory


The Mayans


.....



....


...


Intelligent Design
Spontaneous Combustion



Do you see why your logic falls flat?

I see why your logic falls flat. You think you know enough to rank theories, and apples and oranges at that.  Lincoln's life to Thermodynamics?  Do you even know what you are talking about??

Quote
And these random curiosities compare to a mountain of fossil records, genetic links and observable similarities between multitudes of alive and extinct species...how?

Do your own thinking.  You can do it...

Quote
Now you're just appealing to your own incredulity.  Over billions of years, this isn't at all implausible.  And there is real evidence supporting Evolution theory, not curious photographs.

If that is where you limit yourself, then that's your business.

Quote
Ask yourself how you came from being a fertilized egg to typing on a computer today. 

It isn't circumstantial.  Try harder...

Quote
Care to elaborate more?

Sure.  Bush/911 isn't teaching history.  The event, sure.  Introducing conspiracy theory, no.

Quote
ROFLAMO.  Knowing about the Cydonia isn't being "well read", Taxed.  It's watching too much popular news.

That's correct, that in itself isn't.  Very good!

Quote
You're appealing to the Golden Mean fallacy.  Explain why we should not teach ancient Greek creation myths, then.

In a scope of a class that teaches it, of course it can be.

Quote
Or that John Wilkes Booth really escaped and is related to Harry Oswald.

Wow.  If the teacher chooses to touch on it, then who cares?

Quote
Whoop!  So you admit that there are varying levels of uncertainty.  We don't know for certain who Caesar was; but that doesn't mean that it is equally incomplete with everything else that is uncertain (which is everything).

Apply this to evolution.

See how you are busy trying to "prove" evolution?  You are looking silly because you just don't get it.

Quote
To try another analogy, explain why we should teach the existence of dinosaurs and their suspected habits in public schools.

For a class that teaches it, of course you can teach it.

Quote
Do you really think that your complete lack of knowledge on the subject isn't showing through?

We haven't even discussed any subject.  You are busy trying to show how smart you think you are while I laugh.  Remember, you make statments and then run, like "rapidly depleting resources" you made in another thread, your attempt to argue against supply and demand.  These show how dumb you are, and why I posted the video about why you should start thinking.

Quote
You see, that's the difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design.  Evolution has evidence.  Intelligent design does not; and no, one curious looking structure on an entire planet does not constitute as any more than a sensationalistic newspaper headline.  You do not conclude anything from the above.

You are so far behind that it is funny.

Quote
But you aren't thinking.  You look at intelligent design and evolution, conclude that neither are absolutely certain, and therefore conclude that it's a wash, and that both theories are equally inconclusive.  You think that it's an either/or proposition, of either being proven beyond a shadow of a doubt or being equally skeptical.

You have no idea what I know about the subject, because I haven't discussed it.  Maybe I think evolution and intelligent design can both happen.  You don't know.

Quote
You do not know whether or not 911 was planned by the government.  The evidence quite conclusively suggests that it was not, but there's always the possibility, and I'll be the first to admit that I do not know.

Should we teach it in history class?

Why would you? What would the kids learn?

Quote
So by your logic, we cannot teach general relativity.  It has yet to be reconciled with quantum theory; so, but all accounts, it could be (probably is) incomplete. 

But we still teach it.

In fact, gravitational theory is significantly less complete than Evolution.  Should we not teach it?

I don't pretend to know the depths of general relativity compared with others, beyond what my laymen mind has put together.  If I started to pretend that I know what I don't know about, then I start saying stupid shit like the planet's resources are rapidly depleting, and arguing against supply and demand.  I would find people smarter than I on the subjects and have them dictate a curriculum.

Quote
I think you're committing a massive strawman across your entire argument; you're assuming that I think Evolution theory is complete.  It is not.  It is, however, significantly more complete than ID.  Do you think that all theories are equally plausible?

Yet you think you know what should/shouldn't be taught.  For me to intelligently assert its plausibility means I know what I don't know about it.  You are trying to assert one is more complete than the other, when you have no idea.

Quote
Nope.  You never answered the question: explain why we teach quantum mechanics in class, without any controversy, when it is significantly less complete than evolution.

Quit pretending you are a physicist and are qualified to determine what should or shouldn't be taught. 

Quote
I'm not very pro-union in your interpretation of the word.

Sure.

Quote
Because you [falsely] accuse me of believing Evolution, a theory that scientists constantly revise and evolve, without any room for doubt, even when ID has not evolved in the past five thousand years?

Topics you know very little about, yet continue to assert how valid they are.  Very sad.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 15, 2012, 09:48:00 AM
Even their supporters use the two interchangeably.  Show me any difference between the two other than semantics.

No  youngster, if you're attempting to use two distinct theories interchangeably, YOU have to show where they are the same. Saying it's "all semantics" is just a cheap attempt on your part to conflate the two, and disprove one by arguing the other. That crap my work over on KOS, but we know better here.

QuoteYour ad hominem falls flat.  My issue with creationism/ID is that there is no scientifically quantifiable evidence supporting it.

And there you go again attempting to join the two so you can attack one with the other.

QuoteThis is not the mainstream definition of ID.  This is not what they want taught in public classrooms.

And there you go again, attempting an argument from consensus.

QuoteNope.  Explain where the intelligent designer came from.  The theory bends Occam's Razor over and violates it anally; in order to explain the existence of a finitely complex entity, you insert in a sapient, omnipotent, infinitely complex entity and fail to explain it.  You replace one unknown with a ridiculously larger one.

Can you tell me what happened ONE NANOSECOND BEFORE THE BIG BANG? If you can't, then ALL theories as to FIRST CAUSES are valid. Basically you're saying that it can't be a transcendental cause, because a lot of people don't like the idea of a transcendental cause.

QuoteAnd your objection is irrelevant to Evolution theory.  There is no first cause needed for it.  You're confusing it with Big Bang cosmology.

Your argument is the one that is irrelevant. If you'd paid attention. you would have seen that many theories of intelligent design accept evolution as the simplest way for a superior being to arrive at a result with out having to oversee the process, every where personally. As I said it's only your prejudice against religion, that demands that we banish it from the public square.

QuoteYou know, creationism/ID has remained unchanged for 5000 years, and operates under a book they believe is unchangeable, immutable and perfect, and you accuse me of having a close mind?   

Are you actually that stupid? You can't fight intelligent design by attempting to bring into the conversation Creationism. Argument by False Similarity is also illogical. And if you go back to the title of this thread, you see that it's about INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Continual attempts to bring up Creationism to muddy the waters, won't work.

QuoteEvolution evolves.  Scientists find new data and modify their theory to fit the facts.  Creationists come up with a theory, and then keep it the same forever.

Actually the various Theories of Evolution evolve, evolution itself remains the same. But why would I expect you to understand the difference between the fact of evolution and the various theories to explain that fact. That would require that you actually have some idea what you're talking about, as opposed to simply spouting cant.

Quote from: mdgiles on June 15, 2012, 11:18:46 AM
No  youngster, if you're attempting to use two distinct theories interchangeably, YOU have to show where they are the same. Saying it's "all semantics" is just a cheap attempt on your part to conflate the two, and disprove one by arguing the other.

Alright then.

Establish which precise definition of ID we are referring to here.  Define your theory and its mechanism.  Because, like you say, there are so many variations of it that we need to decide which one we'll discuss.

Quote
Can you tell me what happened ONE NANOSECOND BEFORE THE BIG BANG?

No, you're using god of the gaps here.  ID's can't answer the question either.  They just scream "well, it must have been an intelligent designer because we don't know!"  Let's see if you can detect the irony here.

Quote
If you can't, then ALL theories as to FIRST CAUSES are valid.

My god...this has got to be the most asinine thing I've ever heard you say, and that's certainly saying something.

How can "all" theories of first cause be valid if many are mutually self contradicting?  What if my ID theory is that space monkeys made the universe, and yours is that a giant flying monster did?  Are both theories valid?

QuoteBasically you're saying that it can't be a transcendental cause, because a lot of people don't like the idea of a transcendental cause.

Nope.  That's not how the scientific method works; there is not valid theory that argues a transcendental cause because no evidence exists for it.

Quote
Your argument is the one that is irrelevant. If you'd paid attention. you would have seen that many theories of intelligent design accept evolution as the simplest way for a superior being to arrive at a result with out having to oversee the process, every where personally. As I said it's only your prejudice against religion, that demands that we banish it from the public square.

You're rambling.  This rebuttal hasn't the slightest connection to the part of my post you quoted:

Evolution has no "first clause" dilemma; Big Bang cosmology does.  You're confusing the two.

So don't get all riled up about me inducing religion into the debate; evolution and the B.B theory are only related in their religious implications.  That you confuse the two at all is just evidence of your inability to think of this from a secular standpoint.

Maybe some intelligent being created the "Big Bang."  Maybe evolution is actually a "God" creating the earth, solar system, galaxy, universe, etc.  Maybe the billions of years it took for a one-celled organism creeping out of a mudhole to evolve into a human being, as well as all other life, are in reality only seven days "God time." 

Christopher Hitchens, (RIP) said in his book, "God is Not Great," that "Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."  I suppose that he, being dead, now knows the secrets of the universe.  Unfortunately, he can't tell us.  Nor can we tell others once we have joined Christopher in the great beyond, whatever and wherever it might be. Voltaire said, "If God didn't exist, man would have invented him," or words to that effect.  Maybe that's the case.

I wonder what exists beyond our universe.  Are there other universes, or universi, as the case may be? Think of it.  And were they created, if they exist, by ID, or another big bang, or the same big bang?

I don't know.  No one knows.  IMO the evidence for evolution far exceeds the evidence for ID, but to each his own.   

QuoteMaybe some intelligent being created the "Big Bang."  Maybe evolution is actually a "God" creating the earth, solar system, galaxy, universe, etc.  Maybe the billions of years it took for a one-celled organism creeping out of a mudhole to evolve into a human being, as well as all other life, are in reality only seven days "God time." 

Odd you should mention that. I've always considered it hubris on the part of humanity, to assume that an almighty, omniscient, omnipotent being would have to work on human time scales. Or that to this being, a "day" would mean the same thing that it means to us.

Quote from: mdgiles on June 15, 2012, 02:12:11 PM
Odd you should mention that. I've always considered it hubris on the part of humanity, to assume that an almighty, omniscient, omnipotent being would have to work on human time scales. Or that to this being, a "day" would mean the same thing that it means to us.

I'd consider it hubris to think that the creator of ten thousand quintillion cubic kilometers of space, hundreds of billions of stars and an unimaginable amount of matter and energy would be concerned about whether or not a bipedal being on some insignificant speck of space gets a pay raise.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on June 15, 2012, 02:44:18 PM
I'd consider it hubris to think that the creator of ten thousand quintillion cubic kilometers of space, hundreds of billions of stars and an unimaginable amount of matter and energy would be concerned about whether or not a bipedal being on some insignificant speck of space gets a pay raise.

And HE shouldn't because? Do you feel that you're unworthy of notice?

Quote from: mdgiles on June 15, 2012, 05:18:32 PM
And HE shouldn't because? Do you feel that you're unworthy of notice?

If god created the universe just for us, why make it impossibly larger than we will ever be able to explore or noticeably shape?

Furthermore, why wait for nearly 14 billion years before creating us?

-----------------

It seems as though intelligent supporters of intelligent design (or whatever you wish to call it) simply fail to understand the level of burden of proof required to make a valid scientific theory.  They use the fallacious reasoning that even the slightest of a whim is equally valid to a theory that has been supported by mounds and mounds of scientific evidence simply because the certainty of both is less than 100%.  The logic here is terrible enough that whoever uses it is either an idiot, or subconsciously lying to himself.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 03:57:23 PM
If god created the universe just for us, why make it impossibly larger than we will ever be able to explore or noticeably shape?

Furthermore, why wait for nearly 14 billion years before creating us?

-----------------

It seems as though intelligent supporters of intelligent design (or whatever you wish to call it) simply fail to understand the level of burden of proof required to make a valid scientific theory.  They use the fallacious reasoning that even the slightest of a whim is equally valid to a theory that has been supported by mounds and mounds of scientific evidence simply because the certainty of both is less than 100%.  The logic here is terrible enough that whoever uses it is either an idiot, or subconsciously lying to himself.

You've never heard "God created the earth in seven days"?

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2012, 04:12:36 PM
You've never heard "God created the earth in seven days"?

If you interpret this figuratively, then I don't see your point here.  If you interpret this literally...well, there's so much stupidity in this hypothesis, perhaps you should clarify your position before I waste space.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 04:15:08 PM
If you interpret this figuratively, then I don't see your point here.  If you interpret this literally...well, there's so much stupidity in this hypothesis, perhaps you should clarify your position before I waste space.

Of course it went over your head, God does not work in our time frame, to God, mans entire existence is no more than a few hours to him.
Does that clear it up?

Question, what do you think created the universe?

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2012, 04:22:59 PM
Of course it went over your head, God does not work in our time frame, to God, mans entire existence is no more than a few hours to him.

Actually, if god created space-time, and existed prior to it, he would have to exist outside of time itself and would by no means take time to do anything.

Which would beg the question as to why god would take six "days" to create the universe, rather than just doing it instantaneously.  Time implies fallibility.

Quote
Does that clear it up?

No.  It still must be figurative, because it took significantly longer for the stars to form than for man to come into being.

----

Indeed, parroting off that question, how would creationists explain why man's ancestors' (homo erectus, habilis, etc)  fossils predate homo sapiens' by millions of years, and then mysteriously vanish.  Then, homo sapiens do not appear until significantly after said ancestors appeared; how does this fit with the notion that god created us all at the same time?

Quote
Question, what do you think created the universe?

Clearly, your scientific knowledge on the matter is such that you find evolution and big bang cosmology to be even remotely related to one another.

Either way, since the big bang involved an expansion of both time and space, it requires no causation, since time did not exist before it (unless if we go down the multiple-universes route, in which case you simply get a circle; still no causation needed).

It sounds counter-intuitive, because our human nature demands that everything have a causation; but then we'd get into the question who or what created god.