benny Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Science needs analogies as badly as religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 (edited) Hi wyly! You see, this thread, which was created to discuss why many Canadians have been convinced by creationist literature to doubt the accepted theory of evolution. It started drifting off topic, like most threads do, but then benny and betsy hijacked it. Hijacked my foot! You mean because you cannot dictate and confine the discussion to how you want it to be played. That after all your "authoritative-sounding" extrapolations....the truth about the obviously failing theory of evolution just won't stay hidden in the closet! Too bad Mapleleaf forum - unlike TalkOrigin - doesn't do any "cycle-washing" on any opinion and sources presented on this forum. Btw, who was it among you Atheists who quoted the Bible and said: "The truth will set you free?" and betsy - perhaps because starting two other threads attacking the personal character and qualities of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins are just not enough! There is a rational explanation why you can't see what the other two threads are all about....and that although they co-relate with the subject of Evolution and ID....they stand on their own merit. Because your mind is moulded only to focus on just one purpose: Defend Atheism at all cost! and betsy - perhaps because starting two other threads attacking the personal character and qualities of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins are just not enough! Anyway, if you accuse me of "hijacking" this thread by bringing up ID theory.....aren't you going to say the same if I happen to bring up all the details that were brought up on DARWIN and EVOLUTIONISTS' FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER on to this thread too???? See how muddled you sound? The people who want to push religious interpretations on science just can't grasp the concept of Methodological Naturalism. It's fine to believe in supernatural events and personalities, which by their very definition, are placed in a realm where they cannot be tested objectively -- but that fact alone means that they should be regarded as personal subjective beliefs until some creationist or believer in souls, faith-healing etc. can figure out a method to test them. It's not that these claims have been suppressed, as their advocates contend, it's just that they should not be accepted as viable theories until they can make testable predictions explaining natural phenomena that can be repeated. yada....yada...yada.... Intelligent Design = religious interpretation. That's the real answer to these resistance....why these evolutionists minds are firmly closed to the theory! Thanks for officially confirming it. Fundamentalist Evolutionists are not really after the scientific truth. It's all about defending Atheism. Since they seem to have no confidence of proving their claims with empirical, observable, and/or measurable evidence, they resort to the fallback position - attacking the existing theories that are used to explain the evidence. The result is an increase in ignorance, and a growing population of incredulous boobs who can be led to believe any claim their trusted authorities make. I'll give you "empirical, observable and measurable" evidence all right! THE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS THREAD, DARWIN and EVOLUTIONISTS' FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER! All arguments, rebuttals and sources presented in favor and/or in support of ID....compared to all the kinds of arguments, rebuttals and sources given by fundamentalist Atheists! An educated objective reader will know which side is credible! Since we can't stop our school children from being fed with a stale, faulty evolution theory that's being pushed as fact - pushing for Atheist ideology- .....then, we should be able to offer the other theory that's being proven with evidences to be the one that's more convincing! Evolutionists try to stop it...because they're afraid once ID is brought up in school, their own theory can't and will not be able to stand up to the challenges....and they wouldn't be able to perpetuate their own myth of origin! There ya go. In full circle....back to what you said is the purpose of this thread! Stop flogging a dead horse already! If you don't want to accept ID...fine! Whining won't do you any good. Come up with another theory! Edited May 26, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Oh Lord, Betsy.... I was about to reply saying that you had a point (and you did/do with the refutation of bacterial resistances as evidence of evolution. It is a very good illustration of selection, but without a lot more detail doesn't really cut the mustard as an example of evolution in action)... ... but you HAVE hijacked the thread; are in error that a-theism is the source of rejection of ID; in your mission to 'debunk' evolution theory, have provided no credible evidence whatsoever; misidentify 'creation theory' and ID as having any science foundation whatsoever; ... etc. etc. etc. 'ID theory' is simply not a serious scentific hypothesis. It is religion attempting to manipulate politics, in order to sacrifice science on a religous altar. I would seriously hope that my children WOULD be exposed to 'ID theory' in context, in school-- as an exercize in critical thinking. However, to present it as an accepted theory, or one with any science basis, would be an outright lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 I was about to reply saying that you had a point (and you did/do with the refutation of bacterial resistances as evidence of evolution. Bacterial resistance can also be artificially created in the lab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck U. Farlie Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Oh Lord, Betsy.... I was about to reply saying that you had a point (and you did/do with the refutation of bacterial resistances as evidence of evolution. It is a very good illustration of selection, but without a lot more detail doesn't really cut the mustard as an example of evolution in action)... Are you so sure about that? A quick google search - while ignoring both the creationist sites (such as www.answersingenesis.org) and the evolutionist sites (talkorigin) - I still managed to find a lot of links that say that bacterial resistance is a perfect example of evolution. Here is a PBS reference: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_03.html Whenever antibiotics wage war on microorganisms, a few of the enemy are able to survive the drug. Because microbes are always mutating, some random mutation eventually will protect against the drug. Antibiotics used only when needed and as directed usually overwhelm the bugs. Too much antibiotic use selects for more resistant mutants. When patients cut short the full course of drugs, the resistant strains have a chance to multiply and spread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Try a better analogy for God's sake! The Universe coming apart from all directions/places at the speed of light. That's the meat of it. It's different from the proposed 'Big Rip' in that it could, in theory, happen at any time. A soap bubble popping makes a fine analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Are you so sure about that?A quick google search - while ignoring both the creationist sites (such as www.answersingenesis.org) and the evolutionist sites (talkorigin) - I still managed to find a lot of links that say that bacterial resistance is a perfect example of evolution. Here is a PBS reference: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_03.html Well....I agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 That's the real answer to these resistance....why these evolutionists minds are firmly closed to the theory!Thanks for officially confirming it. Fundamentalist Evolutionists are not really after the scientific truth. It's all about defending Atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, the two are not related...the former is a way of life free from superstition, the latter a scientific concept of the development of life on earth...it's only the religious types that insist onmaking a ideological link between life and superstition... Since we can't stop our school children from being fed with a stale, faulty evolution theory that's being pushed as fact - pushing for Atheist ideology- .....then, we should be able to offer the other theory that's being proven with evidences to be the one that's more convincing! Evolutionists try to stop it...because they're afraid once ID is brought up in school, their own theory can't and will not be able to stand up to the challenges....and they wouldn't be able to perpetuate their own myth of origin! There ya go. In full circle....back to what you said is the purpose of this thread! again it's not atheist ideology...and ID is not a theory it does not even qualify as a hypothesis, you think you understand the science but you don't understand the basic terminology...under the following scientific definitions ID does not even rate as a Hypothesis as it can not be tested or observed. Theory of Evolution however meets the criteria therefore becomes a ligitimate course for educational study. If ID were to be taught then every lunatic fringe religion has a right to teach it's version of life on earth because they also have untestable hypothesis as well... Scientific Law-It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true. Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation. Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 I'm in the same boat not being a cosmologist, etc...but, as near as I can tell, it is the unfortunate hypothetical event of the Universe popping much like a soap bubble. We wouldn't...nor would anyone else...survive. What's worse is that it would happen at light speed so you might not even know it happened until too late...not that you coulda done anything, anyways. ya that's the good thing probably the end could come tomorrow and we wouldn't likely know about it...if a nearby star has a Gamma explosion we won't know it until we detect it but then it's all over at the same time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 The Universe coming apart from all directions/places at the speed of light. That's the meat of it. It's different from the proposed 'Big Rip' in that it could, in theory, happen at any time.A soap bubble popping makes a fine analogy. God's finger makes another analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck U. Farlie Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 (edited) nevermind... tired of beating a dead horse Edited May 26, 2009 by Chuck U. Farlie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Now... their opinions still don't mean that much, because after all science and reality is not a democracy and is not based on opinions - it is based on observations - it is not enough just to think one is correct. Observations are themselves based on mental representations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 God's finger makes another analogy. Sure thing, Zizek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Sure thing, Zizek. Lacan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Itchy & Scratchy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Itchy & Scratchy Jacques Lacan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 the obviously failing theory of evolution Evolution and ID....they stand on their own merit. Defend Atheism at all cost! Evolutionists are not really after the scientific truth. It's all about defending Atheism. faulty evolution theory we should be able to offer the other theory that's being proven with evidences to be the one that's more convincing! Evolutionists try to stop it...because they're afraid once ID is brought up in school, their own theory can't and will not be able to stand up to the challenges....and they wouldn't be able to perpetuate their own myth of origin! All absurdly incorrect; however, you did make one good point in that entire mess:An educated objective reader will know which side is credible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Evolutionists try to stop it...because they're afraid once ID is brought up in school, their own theory can't and will not be able to stand up to the challenges....and they wouldn't be able to perpetuate their own myth of origin! There is separation of church and state in our society. If you want creationism taught to your children in school, there are many fine private religious schools where you can f**k up their ability to use reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 All absurdly incorrect; however, you did make one good point in that entire mess: Betsy: your pet straw-woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Jacques Lacan Fat Tony D'Amico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Jacques Lacan was an atheist though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Jacques Lacan was an atheist though. Fat Tony is a cartoon character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Fat Tony is a cartoon character. Canadians are real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 Canadians are real. Joe Mantegna is real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 26, 2009 Report Share Posted May 26, 2009 I was reading all the follow-ups...and can't help but laugh. No, seriously...it's funny. Anyway, it looks like this topic's been beaten to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.