Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Orange_Crush]

Pretty sure Ray Comfort uses the banana BS.

PS - humans eat bananas wrong.

The fact that this was used as an indictment of ID theorists reveals a lot about the knowledge of the poster that did so.

I ate a banana this morning. I peeled it correctly-- from the short end.

 

[VOLatile]

The fact that this was used as an indictment of ID theorists reveals a lot about the knowledge of the poster that did so.

I ate a banana this morning. I peeled it correctly-- from the short end.

You peel your bananas, that is wrong.

Also, no it doesn't because it was originally used as a pro-ID "gotcha."

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

some things that an "intelligent" designer should have thought twice about

1. Human bodies are relatively frail and are no match, physically, for apex predators in the animal kingdoms.

2. Humans need clean water. A dog can drink out of a mud puddle that horses have shat in and keep right on going.

3. Our eyes are weak, our noses are weak and our hearing is sub-par.

4. Humans' only advantages are opposable thumbs and sentience. Neither of which count for much if we're freezing, starving or drowning.

So if we are truly the products of "intelligent design", the joke is clearly on us.

1. The human body is nowhere near frail. We can survive freezing temperatures and extreme heat. It can heal itself from catastrophic injuries. It can adapt to just about any environment. It has a super powerful immune system that can fight off some of the most deadly bacteria and viruses on the planet. We have complex senses that when one goes down the others get stronger. No match for what predators? Ones that have much larger teeth, weight and speed than us? Funny though we still have become top of the food chain.

2. Not all humans need clean water to survive. It is preferable but not necessary. Over 700 million people around the world do not have access to clean drinking water yet still survive.

3. So our sense are weak? Wrong. Yes there are animals that have sharper senses than humans but this is ambiguous. Some of our senses are much better than other animals.

4. Our only advantages are opposing thumbs??? So intelligence and spoken language are not advantages? Intelligence plays a huge role if we were freezing, starving or drowning.

So the joke is on us that we were designed to be the most intelligent and dominant species on the planet? We could easily eradicate every animal on the planet if we wanted to. Of course doing so would spell the end for us but thats a moot point. Human beings are the dominant species on the planet and that was by design.

 

[Roustabout]

Let me continue to show what I meant. I guess I'll have to (for some reason) explicitly state that I am not an ID scientist, so this should not be considered an official part of intelligent design theory. I guess rjd thought he was conversing with Michael Behe or something...


Again... This is my philosophical response to show how illogical the poster was in his critiques, and to show examples of my claims above.


We are poorly designed against predators. OK. What if we were designed for an environment with no predators?

We need clean drinking water. What if we were designed to drink clean water?

Opposable thumbs, not much help in extreme heat or cold. What of we were designed for a sub-tropical garden?

Our eyes, nose and hearing are weak. (relative judgment by the way). What if we were designed with no predators, and we weren't designed to hunt?

Lot's inferences in these judgments.

Edit: I guess I could add that there is the inference that we are in the state that we were originally designed in-- as opposed to a slow genetic drift from our original state.

In essence that would equate to saying that a rusty Ferrari wasn't designed because it eventually rusted.

You could have just said "evolution really f'd us up."
I guess he didn't consider the evolutionary implications of implying that NS must select for flaws.
Whoops.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Did you know that theory of evolution doesn't explain where life came from? That abiogenesis is just one theory of many that attempts to explain how life began?

As far as the bolded sentence goes, why teach something in which has very little scientific support behind it? I assume as a major basis of your teachings...

I realize there are other theories that exist to explain how life began. Thats the exact reason why I say teach them. ID is one of those theories. Why not teach it?

Sorry but there is scientific evidence for ID. Just because everyone doesn't agree on it doesn't mean there is none. But whats the problem in presenting what scientists who do not agree with evolution have found? Why not present the findings of these theories and let people decide for themselves? I do not understand what is wrong with encouraging kids to be free thinkers.

 

[rjd970]

ID theory does not speak to the veracity of the design, except to say that poor design does not negate design-- any more than the Ford Pinto negated its design. ID theory does not seek to say who or what the designer was, thus doesn't propose a perfect designer.

Since this is actually dealing with the "theory" itself, I'll address it separate.

Again, maybe you can take your tap dance shoes off and tell us the observable falsifiable evidence in the theory itself that would negate a designer. It's like saying "show the big bang didn't happen" or "show evolution didn't happen". ID should act like these other scientific theories, and there should be specific observable evidence that formulates the theory that you can point to. If your answer is still "show it wasn't designed" then put your tap dance shoes back on and keep dancing.

NOTE: This doesn't need any religion or theology associated with it. We are talking "science" with this question.

The fact that you equate ID theory to Norm Geisler, Kirk Cameron and the rest of the YE Creationists... All that tells me is that you don't even know ID theory.

The fact that you are even calling it a theory that is a contemporary to Evolutionary Theory, while saying this:

I answered the critique of design from my theological and philosophical position. Believing that I know who the designer was, and believing that I have His revelation to us, I can speak to His motives and intents where:

1. ID theory does not, and can't
2. The unbeliever making the critique can't.

Edit for addition: From a theological and philosophical perspective, I don't need to refer to falsifiable evidence to refute the philosophically void critique. I just need to refer to:

Philosophy to show that it is vacuous.

My theology to show that what we see in in accord to what my theology would predict. My theology states that humanity was created for a perfect world, and both the world and our form has devolved since the creation.

...speaks volumes. ID makes sense to you because it fits in your theological worldview? If ID didn't support your theological worldview, honestly, would you consider it legitimate science? You don't even have to answer, because I suspect we won't get a straight answer anyway. But honestly think about that for a minute.

 

[Roustabout]

Didn't exist. God placed fossils in the mantle to test our faith.

Each one of you are making unfounded presumptions. Not everyone believes that Jesus rode a v-raptor into Jerusalem.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Where would you fit Velociraptors into that lesson plan?

I fail to see how this is germane.

 

[Roustabout]

...speaks volumes. ID makes sense to you because it fits in your theological worldview? If ID didn't support your theological worldview, honestly, would you consider it legitimate science? You don't even have to answer, because I suspect we won't get a straight answer anyway. But honestly think about that for a minute.

Arbitrary. We can turn the same claim on your worldview.

 

[VOLatile]

Each one of you are making unfounded presumptions. Not everyone believes that Jesus rode a v-raptor into Jerusalem.

I'm being an a-hole for a-hole's sake since I think this discussion is just going in circles anyways. Don't look into it any further than that.

 

[rjd970]

You could have just said "evolution really f'd us up."
I guess he didn't consider the evolutionary implications of implying that NS must select for flaws.
Whoops.

WTF are you talking about? ToE selects for reproductive success, flaws and all. If three-legged retarded bears were better at breeding then their four-legged smater counterparts we would have a bunch of three-legged retarded bears running around. ToE would explain that beautifully. F'ups and all.

Which, might I add, is a much stronger position than "well, we don't claim to know His intent".

 

[Orange_Crush]

You peel your bananas, that is wrong.

Also, no it doesn't because it was originally used as a pro-ID "gotcha."

ID has never used bananas as an ID argument. Period. You too seem to equivocate ID with YE Creationists.

 

[Roustabout]

I like how you've disengaged creationism mode and gone full throttle on ID. I'm guessing this isn't your first rodeo, you've skillfully maneuvered your argument from the biblical version to one that you believe more logically defensible.

Read the thread topic. The subject is evolution.
Your post is just a bald assertion.

 

[rjd970]

Arbitrary. We can turn the same claim on your worldview.

Which is what exactly? I'm arguing the merits of the science. You know, observable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence. This has nothing to do with worldviews amigos.

I could just as simply be arguing Christian theology versus Islamic theology. Since we are arguing science, I am arguing the science.

 

[VOLatile]

Which is what exactly? I'm arguing the merits of the science. You know, observable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence. This has nothing to do with worldviews amigos.

I could just as simply be arguing Christian theology versus Islamic theology. Since we are arguing science, I am arguing the science.

PLEASE! There's no need for SCIENCE in this debate!

 

[Orange_Crush]

Since this is actually dealing with the "theory" itself, I'll address it separate.

Again, maybe you can take your tap dance shoes off and tell us the observable falsifiable evidence in the theory itself that would negate a designer. It's like saying "show the big bang didn't happen" or "show evolution didn't happen". ID should act like these other scientific theories, and there should be specific observable evidence that formulates the theory that you can point to. If your answer is still "show it wasn't designed" then put your tap dance shoes back on and keep dancing.

There is and I have. Irreducibly complex structures are observable and they formulate the theory. I wouldn't expect you to know that since you obviously don't know the theory that you are dumping on. You seem to think that it defines the designer, uses bananas as illustrations, and does not differ from YEC.

NOTE: This doesn't need any religion or theology associated with it. We are talking "science" with this question.



The fact that you are even calling it a theory that is a contemporary to Evolutionary Theory, while saying this:



...speaks volumes.

Have you received head trauma recently? What about the points you bolded:

I answered the critique of design from my theological and philosophical position. Believing that I know who the designer was, and believing that I have His revelation to us, I can speak to His motives and intents where:
ID theory does not, and can't
The unbeliever making the critique can't.

Edit for addition: From a theological and philosophical perspective, I don't need to refer to falsifiable evidence to refute the philosophically void critique. I just need to refer to:

Where I made it explicit that that response was independent from the ID theory... What about that made you think I was answering on behalf of the ID theory? Your use of logic is... Well, nonexistent.

ID makes sense to you because it fits in your theological worldview? If ID didn't support your theological worldview, honestly, would you consider it legitimate science? You don't even have to answer, because I suspect we won't get a straight answer anyway. But honestly think about that for a minute.

Evolution only makes sense to you because it fits your theological worldview. See? I can play that game too.

That is a thinly hidden ad hominem and has nothing to do with the veracity of the theory. It (should be) beneath you.

 

[Orange_Crush]

WTF are you talking about? ToE selects for reproductive success, flaws and all. If three-legged retarded bears were better at breeding then their four-legged smater counterparts we would have a bunch of three-legged retarded bears running around. ToE would explain that beautifully. F'ups and all.

Which, might I add, is a much stronger position than "well, we don't claim to know His intent".

Be fair and honest in comparison. Are you so dense that I need to say this again? ID theory does not use that response. I did.

ID merely says: "Poor design does not negate design."

Are you being dishonest, or are you just that thick?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Which is what exactly? I'm arguing the merits of the science. You know, observable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence. This has nothing to do with worldviews amigos.

I could just as simply be arguing Christian theology versus Islamic theology. Since we are arguing science, I am arguing the science.

Then why did you make it about worldviews? You're a strange cat.

 

[rjd970]

There is and I have. Irreducibly complex structures are observable and they formulate the theory.

.

 

[rjd970]

Be fair and honest in comparison. Are you so dense that I need to say this again? ID theory does not use that response. I did.

ID merely says: "Poor design does not negate design."

Are you being dishonest, or are you just that thick?

Stop. Breathe. Go back, and slowly read who this was in response to.

 

[Orange_Crush]

.

I didn't expect you to respond to those points that you cut out of my response, since they pointed out how foolish you've become. You just added a response to further illustrate it.

 

[rjd970]

Have you received head trauma recently? What about the points you bolded:



Where I made it explicit that that response was independent from the ID theory... What about that made you think I was answering on behalf of the ID theory? Your use of logic is... Well, nonexistent.

Again, man, your just a piece of work. I EXPLICITLY stated:

Since this is actually dealing with the "theory" itself, I'll address it separate.

 

[rjd970]

Evolution only makes sense to you because it fits your theological worldview. See? I can play that game too.

That is a thinly hidden ad hominem and has nothing to do with the veracity of the theory. It (should be) beneath you.

Evolution makes sense from a SCIENTIFIC point of view. This has nothing to do with my theological worldview. From a theological point of view, all your points of He is the designer and what not are worth talking about and we have. I would like to think even if I believed in God, I would categorize ID as scientific sewage on a generous day.

 

[rjd970]

And folks, this is what it comes down to, when arguing the actual merits of ID fails, it turns into accusing me of saying things I didn't, arguing semantics, and flying charges of fallacies.

It may make you think your winning a internet message board debate, but your position is still just as weak as when you started.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Again, man, your just a piece of work. I EXPLICITLY stated:

Then you said:

The fact that you are even calling it [ID] a theory that is a contemporary to Evolutionary Theory, while saying this:

Originally Posted by Orange_Crush View Post
I answered the critique of design from my theological and philosophical position. Believing that I know who the designer was, and believing that I have His revelation to us, I can speak to His motives and intents where:
ID theory does not, and can't
The unbeliever making the critique can't.

Edit for addition: From a theological and philosophical perspective, I don't need to refer to falsifiable evidence to refute the philosophically void critique. I just need to refer to:

Philosophy to show that it is vacuous.

My theology to show that what we see in in accord to what my theology would predict. My theology states that humanity was created for a perfect world, and both the world and our form has devolved since the creation.

...speaks volumes.

So, the fact that I speak of ID as a scientific theory while saying other stuff from a philosophical and theological perspective... What does that speak volumes about?

You weren't comparing theories? Oh.... So you were judging the theory because a Christian believes it. Should we not call evolution a theory because an atheist believes it? You most definitely are a strange cat.