Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#1,451
#1,451
Orange_Crush said:
It is teaching that design can be recognized in nature and proposing those specific areas where it can be recognized. It is proposing mathematical models for other areas of research.

Because DE makes the claim that DE has happened unguided and through strictly natural means, it obviously puts the theories at odds. For one to be true, the other would have to be false.

Note that ID agrees with NS and evolution. It just states that there are some structures that DE could not have produced.
Click to expand...

Then it would need to show clear, falsifiable, and observable evidence of this. What is the criteria for design verses evolved? What is the observable evidence that delineates the two? How can this be taught so someone can objectively look at two different structures and determine design verses evolved? The ID crowd needs to do this. Until then, sayings like "flaw does not negate design" and "evolution can't answer this" won't cut it. And anybody arguing for this to be considered legitimate science is going to be met with a healthy serving of skepticism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,454
#1,454
If the fittest are the only ones to pass on their genes, why do I have high blood pressure and hypothyroidism? Damn genes! Curse you!!!
 
#1,455
#1,455
rjd970 said:
This is rich, who said this:
Click to expand...
Don't know who said that. I was responding to your statement to me.
I
rjd970 said:
then fine, answer the critique of design from your scientific point of view.

Hint: If it is "we don't know the intent" then it is a fail from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Confused as to what you are asking here?
 
Last edited:
#1,456
#1,456
rjd970 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have committed many logical fallacies in your arguments. When they are pointed out to you, you dismiss them. Your views may make you think you're winning an internet message board debate, but your position is weak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,457
#1,457
rjd970 said:
Then it would need to show clear, falsifiable, and observable evidence of this. What is the criteria for design verses evolved? What is the observable evidence that delineates the two? How can this be taught so someone can objectively look at two different structures and determine design verses evolved? The ID crowd needs to do this. Until then, sayings like "flaw does not negate design" and "evolution can't answer this" won't cut it. And anybody arguing for this to be considered legitimate science is going to be met with a healthy serving of skepticism.
Click to expand...

I am now absolutely convinced that you know nothing of the theory you are dumping on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,458
#1,458
BigOrangeTrain said:
You have committed many logical fallacies in your arguments. When they are pointed out to you, you dismiss them. Your views may make you think you're winning an internet message board debate, but your position is weak.
Click to expand...

tumblr_mt31fi7cop1rpinwfo1_500.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,463
#1,463
VOLatile said:
Why shouldn't schools teach something that nearly the entire scientific community regards as a fact?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many people "regard" something as fact. The scientific method doesn't allow for "regards." Why is it that all the supposedly skeptical, rigid disbelieving pseudo-scientists here can't understand that? Science only considers things that are demonstrable, observable facts to be facts. Not belief systems based on suppositions.

Use your collective skepticism equally. A fact is a fact. Beyond dispute. The sky is blue...water is wet. These are observable. Joe next door descended from a primate...who came from "rockwash" accidentally aligning proteins trillions and trillions of times in a incredibly complex double helix of DNA where just 1 or 2 in the wrong spot is often fatal is not observable. Its not even effin logical for crying out loud. Please wrap your heads around this very simple truth. (Volatile I am not speaking to you personally...I am speaking to many posters here.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,464
#1,464
marcusluvsvols said:
It doesn't matter how many people "regard" something as fact. The scientific method doesn't allow for "regards." Why is it that all the supposedly skeptical, rigid disbelieving pseudo-scientists here can't understand that? Science only considers things that are demonstrable, observable facts to be facts. Not belief systems based on suppositions.

Use your collective skepticism equally. A fact is a fact. Beyond dispute. The sky is blue...water is wet. These are observable. Joe next door descended from a primate...who came from "rockwash" accidentally aligning proteins trillions and trillions of times in a incredibly complex double helix of DNA where just 1 or 2 in the wrong spot is often fatal is not observable. Its not even effin logical for crying out loud. Please wrap your heads around this very simple truth. (Volatile I am not speaking to you personally...I am speaking to many posters here.)
Click to expand...

Another excellent post.
 
#1,465
#1,465
I've heard the equally illogical and ignorant response to this so many times I can do it for them:

"Sure there are trillions and trillions of proteins that would have to align perfectly to make even 1 strand of DNA...but if you KNEW anything about PROBABILITY you would know that given enough time, the probability of everything happening becomes 1 to 1."

I've been fed that line of BS countless times. Let's look at this logically for a minute:

If a person even, already completely made...was on a barren planet with no other living thing....how long would it take before he would populate the earth???

The answer is NEVER. That would never happen. He would starve to death and DIE. What is the probability that LIFE would come from NOWHERE?? Its ZERO. Because it has never ever happened. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that life ever came from nothing accidentally. ZERO. And yes I know that in your opinion that is exactly how much evidence there is that GOD created life....guess what the difference is??? I don't try to forcefeed EVERY CHILD IN PUBLIC SCHOOL what I believe happened. I acknowledge that because it is an unproven theory that it should be taught in the home or at Church. Not somewhere that kids are legally bound to go get an education. Quit indoctrinating kids with my tax dollars!!
 
Last edited:
#1,466
#1,466
marcusluvsvols said:
It doesn't matter how many people "regard" something as fact. The scientific method doesn't allow for "regards." Why is it that all the supposedly skeptical, rigid disbelieving pseudo-scientists here can't understand that? Science only considers things that are demonstrable, observable facts to be facts. Not belief systems based on suppositions.

Use your collective skepticism equally. A fact is a fact. Beyond dispute. The sky is blue...water is wet. These are observable. Joe next door descended from a primate...who came from "rockwash" accidentally aligning proteins trillions and trillions of times in a incredibly complex double helix of DNA where just 1 or 2 in the wrong spot is often fatal is not observable. Its not even effin logical for crying out loud. Please wrap your heads around this very simple truth. (Volatile I am not speaking to you personally...I am speaking to many posters here.)
Click to expand...

From toasting Hovind to instructing the crowd on skepticism in just a few short posts.


Gold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,468
#1,468
marcusluvsvols said:
Nice deflection. Avoid the truth at all costs. You are blinded by your faith in evolution. Ironic isn't it?
Click to expand...

Get used to it with him. It is ironic. He along with other atheists bash believers in God for using faith. Yet they employ it with evolution and its fine. Another gem, the burden of proof. When a theist makes a claim the burden of proof is squarely on them. However when an atheist makes a claim, the burden of proof does not apply. They are the worlds best deflection artists.
 
#1,469
#1,469
BTW

If I'm wrong about what I believe...then I guess My family and I were unnecessarily kind to those around us. We gave more time, 10% plus of all my income, and great quantities of love, respect, community service, charity etc..than we really needed to I guess from your perspective. Not because we fear damnation...that's a misconception. True believers take Gods promises of salvation at face value and know they are going to Heaven. We do these things because we love Jesus Christ. We look around us and see all that he gave for us. All that we are allowed to have by Gods will. A life of trying to serve him is the least we can do. We want to do these things. We want to please Him. It makes us happy.
If you're wrong then sadly you're going to spend eternity being tortured in Hell. No matter how much I argue with anyone in any forum....I don't wish that on anybody. Ever. I want for all people to go to Heaven. The simple truth is the road to Heaven is narrow. A man has to choose to take that path. Do you realize that any person who has ever tried to witness to you about the Lord has ABSOLUTELY nothing to gain from you coming to know Jesus? Nothing at all. It doesn't profit a man by any quantifiable measure or reward to lead another man to Christ. Certainly no reward in this world. I don't know of any scripture that says there's a reward in Heaven for that specific act. Seems lie to a logical person it would make sense to give a serious effort to try and get to know God. Search for Him. Pray. Read His Word. Ask for a revelation. When the consequences are eternal its a no brainer IMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,472
#1,472
Vol8188 said:
What scientific evidence is there to justify labeling ID as a scientific theory?
Click to expand...

Science, simply defined, is a search for causes.
Why should anthropology be a science? It isn't repeatable? (Kidding of course) what about big bang cosmology. It isn't repeatable.
 
#1,473
#1,473
Roustabout said:
Science, simply defined, is a search for causes.
Why should anthropology be a science? It isn't repeatable? (Kidding of course) what about big bang cosmology. It isn't repeatable.
Click to expand...

So you are conceding that ID is in no way a scientific theory?
 
#1,474
#1,474
Vol8188 said:
So you are conceding that ID is in no way a scientific theory?
Click to expand...

No. it is a different theory, but a theory nonetheless. It is examines function in nature. The science community held that the universe was eternal. Better understanding of thermodynamics and new observations called this into question.

Darwin himself stated that if irreducably complex machinery were at work, then his own theory would be falsified. He saw the cell as a blob and not with the privelges we are afforded. We now know The cell is a factory.

Why is the universe intelligible?
 
#1,475
#1,475
Roustabout said:
No. it is a different theory, but a theory nonetheless. It is examines function in nature. The science community held that the universe was eternal. Better understanding of thermodynamics and new observations called this into question.

Darwin himself stated that if irreducably complex machinery were at work, then his own theory would be falsified. He saw the cell as a blob and not with the privelges we are afforded. We now know The cell is a factory.

Why is the universe intelligible?
Click to expand...

Nowhere in your post did you state why ID is a scientific theory.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top