archnemesis
Member
God had a change of heart?Measley said:Just curious; If intelligent design is true, why are there mass extinctions?
God had a change of heart?Measley said:Just curious; If intelligent design is true, why are there mass extinctions?
Any opportunity to correct lies through a public platform should absolutely be taken no matter how futile it may seem. You have no idea whatsoever who could be listening. Are you 100% sure that not a single one of Perry's followers will listen to differing perspectives? If so you must be omniscient.Zibrahim said:lol that's exactly what I'm saying.
Evolution by design is not a biological term because it's not scientific. The idea that evolution was guided in some manner is not testable and so is not science.Zibrahim said:lol, okay...you pique my interest. What exactly are you? Are you a biologist or some other occupation of scientist? Where did you study and what was your concentration? I'm genuinely curious because you seem to project being an authority on this particular subject. At least based on your posts thus far.
Measley said:Just curious; If intelligent design is true, why are there mass extinctions?
It's certainly possible for them to be more informed on that particular matter, yes.Zibrahim said:Wait, do you honestly believe a grade school teacher is more intelligent than a quantum physics professor because they don't believe in evolution?
dIEHARD said:Essentially saying that anyone who believes in intelligence design is a moron and uneducated.
Some of the smartest and most well educated people i know believe in it.
Nope, but i have not had to hear about Perry for years.
That is beside the fact, under no terms would i call someone with a PhD "uneducated".Pandaman said:People with PhD's are laymen outside of their field you know.
you wouldn't let your mechanic install your dentures, don't put a PhD on a pedestal they haven't earned.
Someone that is faith based isn't scientific, who would have thunk.DeathIsTheEnd said:Evolution by design is not a biological term because it's not scientific. The idea that evolution was guided in some manner is not testable and so is not science.
that1dude24 said:What's with the knee-jerk reactions to dawkins?
Nearly every thread that involves him has posts with variants of "I hate him and he's a prick" within a few minutes of posting, regardless of subject matter, regardless of the degree of involvement he has in the matter, and regardless of whether he's correct or not. It's really annoying.
It wouldn't even be that bad if the people who posted it added anything to the discussion, but it's usually all they have to say.
Rick perry should get called out on this. His willfully ignorant views on scientific theories are something of utmost importance to his platform, and it is rather worrying that he is close to being in a position of greater power than he currently has.
Zibrahim said:Wait, do you honestly believe a grade school teacher is more intelligent than a quantum physics professor because they don't believe in evolution?
Maybe not technically uneducated, but there's certainly dumb/silly/ignorant people out there with PhDs. A PhD just means you have a good work ethic.dIEHARD said:That is beside the fact, under no terms would i call someone with a PhD "uneducated".
Would you consider a person with a PhD in physics uneducated regarding baseball if they asked what quarter the game was in?dIEHARD said:That is beside the fact, under no terms would i call someone with a PhD "uneducated".
I hear Kent Hovind has a PhD.dIEHARD said:That is beside the fact, under no terms would i call someone with a PhD "uneducated".
DeathIsTheEnd said:Evolution by design is not a biological term because it's not scientific. The idea that evolution was guided in some manner is not testable and so is not science.
linsivvi said:I said there are smart people, like your quantum physics professor example, who might not believe in evolution. Not because they are not smart, but because they are irrational, which is a human fault.
I don't know how you get that idea from what I wrote.
Edit: The quote you bolded even specifically said there are smarter people who don't believe in evolution. It's like you are trying to pick a fight in the thread with everyone for no fucking reason.
Okay this post had me in tears crying. THank you archnemesisarchnemesis said:God had a change of heart?
Zibrahim said:lol, okay...you pique my interest. What exactly are you? Are you a biologist or some other occupation of scientist? Where did you study and what was your concentration? I'm genuinely curious because you seem to project being an authority on this particular subject. At least based on your posts thus far.
dIEHARD said:Someone that is faith based isn't scientific, who would have thunk.
Well, yeah, but you're talking about real sources of "design" input that are all known quantities themselves. We run into trouble when the designer becomes some completely undefined entity who TOTALLY isn't a magic dude wiith a white beard.Zibrahim said:I wasn't exactly trying the term as much as I was addressing the user. Furthermore, one could argue that evolution could be guided in some manner and can absolutely be tested. The effects of selective breeding can be measured. The effects of human impact on ecological systems can be measured. If evolution is happening constantly, there can be guides to it and it can be measured. But that's not what my comment was about![]()
Stand for... faith? Yes i'm quite accepting of it.jaxword said:So you're saying "evolution by design" is faith-based, and this is something you stand for?
Of course, but i wouldn't not call them uneducated in the general sense of the word, which is the case here.that1dude24 said:Would you consider a person with a PhD in physics uneducated regarding baseball if they asked what quarter the game was in?
They just have no education relevant to the topic at hand. Completely different i guess...dIEHARD said:That is beside the fact, under no terms would i call someone with a PhD "uneducated".
Under no terms? Even if the PhD was bought?dIEHARD said:That is beside the fact, under no terms would i call someone with a PhD "uneducated".
Zibrahim said:Sorry if I seem like I'm picking a fight, brah. I'm not. I just misread your statement, sorry.
Hugs??
Orayn said:Well, yeah, but you're talking about real sources of "design" input that are all known quantities themselves. We run into trouble when the designer becomes some completely undefined entity who TOTALLY isn't a magic dude wiith a white beard.
jaxword said:I'm the same as you, just a man.
linsivvi said:Man hugs.![]()
Sorry, it's getting late and my posting ability has diminished. I probably shouldn't have access to a smartphone, NeoGAF app, and polarizing science threads when I should be sleeping.Zibrahim said:Dude, this statement is redundant. The guy I answered's statement had no implications of "a magic dude with a white beard" (I personally think he doesn't have one, but whatever)
We may both have penises but I don't think we're the same, holmes. You didn't answer my question.
Generally, I'm led to believe, the idea of evolution by design is that God intended for evolution to take place, rather than taking an active role. I don't think that idea is testable.Zibrahim said:I wasn't exactly trying the term as much as I was addressing the user. Furthermore, one could argue that evolution could be guided in some manner and can absolutely be tested. The effects of selective breeding can be measured. The effects of human impact on ecological systems can be measured. If evolution is happening constantly, there can be guides to it and it can be measured. But that's not what my comment was about![]()
dIEHARD said:Stand for... faith? Yes i'm quite accepting of it.
that1dude24 said:God didn't think that species was interesting anymore.
dIEHARD said:Of course, but i wouldn't not call them uneducated in the general sense of the word, which is the case here.
No i don't dislike people who disagree with what i believe. It gets pretty tiring seeing this dude's name on a thread title every week though, just because he says something about a political figure.jaxword said:So, earlier in this thread you were critical of Dawkins and the reason you gave was "just hate pricks".
However, you've now stated quite clearly that instead of fact/evolutionary science, you prefer religious explanations for life, including faith and "evolution by design" which seems to be intelligent design under a different label.
That would suggest that the real reason you were drawn to this thread is not because of Dawkins himself, but because you see him as a representative of the opposition to your religious beliefs. Do you dislike people who disagree with your faith? It's alright to admit that's the real reason for arguing.
dIEHARD said:It gets pretty tiring seeing this dude's name on a thread title every week
dIEHARD said:all i said is i think Dawkins is a dick. It's like his personal mission is to make sure nobody believes in evolution.
Why do you say that? I think it's clear he has made a great impact with his books in educating people on evolution.dIEHARD said:It's like his personal mission is to make sure nobody believes in evolution.
jaxword said:Have you ever actually watched Dawkins in a debate? Your statement there really suggests you have no idea what he stands for.
.....What?! Did you even read the OP of this thread or is that just a typo?dIEHARD said:No i don't dislike people who disagree with what i believe. It gets pretty tiring seeing this dude's name on a thread title every week though, just because he says something about a political figure.
I have not even done any real arguing here, all i said is i think Dawkins is a dick. It's like his personal mission is to make sure nobody believes in evolution.
typo. It's almost 2 in the morning.Hylian7 said:.....What?! Did you even read the OP of this thread or is that just a typo?
Okay, fair enough, then I'm assuming "evolution" was supposed to be "creationism". Yeah, you are right, that is something he wants to do. There is no evidence for creationism, so people shouldn't believe it.dIEHARD said:typo. It's almost 2 in the morning.
dIEHARD said:typo. It's almost 2 in the morning.
That seems like the opposite of what he said. Your post is a misnomer, anyway, if I'm understanding it correctly, because anyone who truly understands quantum physics is overwhelmingly likely to "believe" in evolution.Zibrahim said:Wait, do you honestly believe a grade school teacher is more intelligent than a quantum physics professor because they don't believe in evolution?
I've seen him in a debate and i thought he came off like a smug asshole. No i have never read one of his books.jaxword said:Alright, but that still leaves the question: have you ever actually watched Dawkins in a debate, or read any of his works fully?
dIEHARD said:I've seen him in a debate and i thought he came off like a smug asshole. No i have never read one of his books.
dIEHARD said:I've seen him in a debate and i thought he came off like a smug asshole. No i have never read one of his books.
Ventron said:This is ridiculous, not only is Dawkins arrogant, but he's also wrong too.
Yes, it's called Democracy. Other people may have a different favourite candidate to you, shock horror.
Wrong, evolution is a theory. It is an inference used to explain a set of observations, which makes it a theory. It's the best theory we currently have for explaining the origin of species, but that doesn't rule out a future discovery which may contradict the foundations of this theory, and we thus must create a new theory that is consistent with all observations ever made. This happens all the time in science.
It is a fact that evolution happens, that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally under the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics. It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift have all been proven to have a predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application. It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by decedent groups and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineage backwards over myriad generations. It is a fact, that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes, exactly the same way lions are a subset of cats. It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its basal form through reverse sequencing, and that these forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology and embryological development as well as through chronologically correct placement in successive stages revealed in the geologic column. It is a fact that every organism on Earth has obvious relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species, even according to the strictest definition of that term. It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly observed and documented dozens of times both in the lab and in naturally controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have always stood critical analysis in peer review. It also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or measurable validity and that no would be alternative notion has met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.
General education is important in elected officials. Also, while a politician's stance on evolution might not directly relate to governing, Dawkins is correct in that it is a litmus test for general education as well as ability to comprehend evidence and draw appropriate conclusions from them. When someone like Rick Perry or Ron Paul state they don't believe evolution, which is very basic biology and a fact, it is a very strong indicator that I cannot trust their judgement....unless you work in the majority of occupations where evolution is irrelevant.
Ventron said:I agree with this, if he just shut his mouth after this he wouldn't seem so arrogant.
Ventron said:Honestly, I am so sick of science being treated as a religion,
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values.
It isn't Dawkins' fault that Christianity is a morally bankrupt religion built upon unsubstantiated claims and fractal wrongness.and being used to wage war against Christianity.
dIEHARD said:I've seen him in a debate and i thought he came off like a smug asshole. No i have never read one of his books.
Mama Robotnik said:If you understood any aspect of evolution, then you'd know that the concept is thoroughly incompatible with "design". The above is two mutually exclusive statements making up some hybrid pseudo-science philosophy that tries to reconcile modern scientific developments with a desire to hold on to a magical intent. It commits the gravest crime of science - it has no evidence - and therefore is a conclusion reached through no scientific reasoning.
I don't think those people are the type to be swayed by facts and evidence.DeathIsTheEnd said:Anyone thinking Dawkins is arrogant should watch his interview with Wendy Wright.
From that one would think he is the most patient man on the planet.
krameriffic said:I will admit that Dawkins tends to have a flair for the arrogant and grandiose in his speech that comes across more as intolerable smugness than genuine intelligence, but at least he's on the right side of the damn debate.
IrishNinja said:to play devil's advocate, i kinda disagree here.
i believe some catholics (i wanna say pope john paul II as well?) resolve this by simply saying the process of evolution was created by god. it's not my belief either, but personally, i'm far more comfortable with this resolution than the horrifically low 38% figure we're at, by playing into this constant science v religion false dichotomy. if a theist wishes to indulge proven science in this manner, it's no worse than what say Aquinas did to resolve platonic thought with scholasticism - which, at best, allowed early philosophy to survive the dark ages. just a thought.