|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575224 - 01/09/09 01:36 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'd say I agree with every statement that Tchan has made so far.
I would like to see any two IDers agree upon their conception of a designer, however.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575227 - 01/09/09 01:38 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
myriadeyes said: Because something is testable is not merit enough to be used in a scientific textbook.
Correct. Testability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion in a scientific textbook. To be sufficient, it should be both testable and consistent with the observable data. The "primordial soup" hypothesis fits both criteria, as do several other theories, at least some of which you're sure to find in current science textbooks. Intelligent Design is not one of them because it is not a scientific theory.
Quote:
I say much of evolution that has yet to have been verified, such as life's origin, should remain in a philosophy class, where it belongs. Instead, it is being touted as fact.
The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. That's abiogenesis, a whole different field of biology.
--------------------
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575242 - 01/09/09 01:44 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
myriadeyes said: As Expelled pointed out, Darwin's view of the cell was literally nothing like what we know it now to be like.
Explain to me how a flawed conceptualization of the cell which was later proven wrong actually discredits any aspect of the idea of evolution. Scientific knowledge exists in a state of flux, where previously mistaken concepts are replaced by new ones which better match available data.
Your problem doesn't seem to be with evolution, but with the primordial soup idea; this is contested within the scientific community, for example by Francis Crick, who suggested that life on earth may have developed from extraterrestrial origins. It's anyone's best guess how "life" as we know it now arose from the elements, and many hypotheses have been put forth, none of which is any more provable than the last. It is an open matter of discussion.
It really has no impact on the core ideas of the theory of evolution. It's totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not life has adapted to its environment through natural selection and survival of the fittest. One possibility can be taught in biology courses, while the other lacks practical application and belongs in philosophy textbooks.
Edited by Tchan909 (01/09/09 02:04 AM)
|
myriadeyes
man with a movie camera
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 358
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: deCypher]
#9575256 - 01/09/09 01:51 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Okay. Here is my basic deal. Science claims something that goes directly against my religious views. Something that is far from having been proven, and yet most K-12'ers perceive it as some type of scientific truth. They are forced to take tests on it and write papers about it if they desire to do well in the class. This also applies to college students, which isn't as big of a deal, I just find it annoying and completely at odds with my world view. Until these theories have been proven, one of two paths should be taken. Either these highly controversial unsubstantiated theories should be removed until proven, because of the avoidable havoc they reek on people's religious views, or optional courses should be allowed that cater to both theists and atheists. If at some point, they have been verifiably tested, then by all means include them.
It bothers me that people would champion these unproven theories in the faces of people who clearly have a strong distaste for them, all in the "name of science". I guess all I'm really asking for is some decency.
-------------------- If you spare a little of your imagination . . .
Edited by myriadeyes (01/09/09 01:58 AM)
|
myriadeyes
man with a movie camera
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 358
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: deCypher]
#9575262 - 01/09/09 01:54 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: I'd say I agree with every statement that Tchan has made so far.
I would like to see any two IDers agree upon their conception of a designer, however.
Quote:
Tchan909 said: Science is a collection of facts about our universe.
Quote:
deCypher said: Nothing in science is fact.
-------------------- If you spare a little of your imagination . . .
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575270 - 01/09/09 01:56 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I just love watching a fiery debate on the origin of life boil down to a difference in personal semantics.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
Edited by Tchan909 (01/09/09 01:59 AM)
|
myriadeyes
man with a movie camera
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 358
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: Silversoul]
#9575281 - 01/09/09 02:01 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Correct. Testability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion in a scientific textbook. To be sufficient, it should be both testable and consistent with the observable data. The "primordial soup" hypothesis fits both criteria, as do several other theories, at least some of which you're sure to find in current science textbooks.
How is life from non-life consistent with observable data??
-------------------- If you spare a little of your imagination . . .
|
myriadeyes
man with a movie camera
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 358
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
|
I have problems with evolution, but I haven't done near enough study yet and I'm sure I'd be dominated by a hoard of shroomerites if I attempted to question it. I mainly have grievances with the idea macro-evolution, not natural selection, but if I wanted to argue about the theory of evolution you'd see me posting in the science forum.
Francis Crick's theory seems just as philosophical and untestable as ID to me
-------------------- If you spare a little of your imagination . . .
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575315 - 01/09/09 02:11 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
myriadeyes said: Francis Crick's theory seems just as philosophical and untestable as ID to me
That's why the simpler primordial soup idea is more commonly taught.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
Edited by Tchan909 (01/09/09 02:11 AM)
|
C.M. Mann
subconscious explorer
Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
|
When man entered this world, it was a completely unique animal. His existence was contrary to the evolutionary survival of the fittest. After a couple billion years no other organism had come close to obtaining human brainpower. If the evolutionary model is used, why are there no other examples.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: C.M. Mann]
#9575345 - 01/09/09 02:23 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
C.M. Mann said: His existence was contrary to the evolutionary survival of the fittest.
How?
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
Edited by Tchan909 (01/09/09 02:25 AM)
|
C.M. Mann
subconscious explorer
Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
|
The brain!
|
igwna
The Cap'n
Registered: 06/19/07
Posts: 8,016
Loc: New England, USA
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: c0sm0nautt]
#9575372 - 01/09/09 02:33 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
we were created to mine gold.
-------------------- I don't believe in cops, bosses, or politicians. Some call that anarchism. I call it having a fucking heart that beats.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: igwna]
#9575386 - 01/09/09 02:39 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Personally, I believe we were created to masturbate. What other species possesses the same capacity for masturbation that we do?
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9576227 - 01/09/09 10:09 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
myriadeyes said:
Quote:
Tchan909 said: Science is a collection of facts about our universe.
Quote:
deCypher said: Nothing in science is fact.
In that case I must disagree. A fact implies something that is unarguably true and never will change; instead, all science proposes are theories that change based on the current evidence.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Amber_Glow
Sat Chit Anand
Registered: 09/02/02
Posts: 1,543
Last seen: 11 years, 20 days
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: rajajuju]
#9576229 - 01/09/09 10:09 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Is there a form of Godless Intelligent Design?
The organisms involved through the process of evolution have certainly had a hand in the course of evolution. The mistakes of less intelligent organisms which led to their demise. The success of more intelligent organisms which led to their success. The intelligence of one species that preyed upon a weaker species. The intelligence involved in mate-selection which determines who procreates and who doesn't. The process was "guided" all along the way by the organisms involved in the process of evolution through their actions, intelligence, and desires.
Is this Intelligent Design? Is this atheistic evolution?
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9576233 - 01/09/09 10:10 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
myriadeyes said: Okay. Here is my basic deal. Science claims something that goes directly against my religious views. Something that is far from having been proven, and yet most K-12'ers perceive it as some type of scientific truth. They are forced to take tests on it and write papers about it if they desire to do well in the class. This also applies to college students, which isn't as big of a deal, I just find it annoying and completely at odds with my world view. Until these theories have been proven, one of two paths should be taken. Either these highly controversial unsubstantiated theories should be removed until proven, because of the avoidable havoc they reek on people's religious views, or optional courses should be allowed that cater to both theists and atheists. If at some point, they have been verifiably tested, then by all means include them.
It bothers me that people would champion these unproven theories in the faces of people who clearly have a strong distaste for them, all in the "name of science". I guess all I'm really asking for is some decency.
Do you prefer decency or truth?
If evidence is found contradicting your religious views, would you change them?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
c0sm0nautt
Registered: 05/19/08
Posts: 10,303
Loc: The Astral Realm
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: C.M. Mann]
#9576271 - 01/09/09 10:23 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
C.M. Mann said: You implied that you were polytheistic, who are the god's that you identify with? Besides concentrating real hard how do you slip into other dimensions, and what do they look like?
Hehe, polytheistic but not in the sense you are thinking. Rather, I believe all humans are co creators of our reality through conscious thought, beliefs, and emotions.
Well there are quite a few ways you can slip into the astral realm. I recommend the book "Adventures Beyond the Body" by William Buhlman. The one that works for me is a combination of affirmations and visualization. Waking up in the middle of the night, when you are in a state where you could easily fall back asleep, you need to repeat the affirmation in your head "Now I"m Out of Body." At the same time visualize a room in your house, in detail, and especially the "feeling" of the room. How does the couch feel, the floor, etc.
If you do all this you can easily induce a OBE, where you will hear a loud ringing noise in your ears and feel powerful vibrations encompass your entire body. Staying calm during this transition phase is a must. The astral realm you will first enter is a thought based mirror of the physical reality, but you need not stay there. The only limit is your imagination.
|
c0sm0nautt
Registered: 05/19/08
Posts: 10,303
Loc: The Astral Realm
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: igwna]
#9576294 - 01/09/09 10:31 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
skcorrelyt said: we were created to mine gold.
By the Annukki right?
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: deCypher]
#9576307 - 01/09/09 10:39 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: In that case I must disagree. A fact implies something that is unarguably true and never will change; instead, all science proposes are theories that change based on the current evidence.
This is true, I actually did misstate. Doesn't have much impact on the core argument, though.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
|