Intelligent design? or Evolution?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Simple, which is true? which is a lie?, Intelligent design? or Evolution?

By
Intelligent design, I am saying:
A eternal god creating earth, completely (not leaving and letting species evolve)

I am happy to hear your ideas and views. But please limit Ad-hominems: Refute the idea not the person.

Also when all possible please use logic and or proof to back up what you are saying. otherwise that argument dead.


Please if you think that this is a "
controversial subject" I'm not making you read or take part in this debate.

Thanks for reading











 

DeletedUser

We've already been down this route and we've determined that intelligent design is a joke.

Read The Blind Watchmaker for more information.
 

DeletedUser

We've already been down this route and we've determined that intelligent design is a joke.

Read The Blind Watchmaker for more information.

Been there, done that. Bullcrap dogma of creationism discarded as the pile of dung it is.
 

DeletedUser

Intelligent Design cannot be proven or disproven because it would involve the proving or disproving of the existence of God. Cannot be done Scientifically.

The only truth in Evolution is facts that we see. Evolutionary theory though is just that, and its not something that can be explained yet scientifically-if ever.

The arguments you have for Evolution, that is the facts of evolution that exist do not prove Evolutionary Theory. They also do not disprove Intelligent Design. If we cannot produce solid evidence as to why, we cannot say that the evolution did not take place because of intelligent design "redesigning" a species etc.

Intelligent Design is balked at by the Science community because it has ties to supernatural beliefs in a higher power.

But the same flaws in the belief of Intelligent Design and proving it scientifically plague Evolutionary Theory - and we can hypothesize why we think the changes take place, but we cannot concretely prove why. We can only say that it does.
 

DeletedUser

Intelligent Design cannot be proven or disproven because it would involve the proving or disproving of the existence of God. Cannot be done Scientifically.
See, the funny thing is that you believe that since your fantasy cannot be disproven that it somehow holds water, but it doesn't. It doesn't matter how intricate your fairy-tale becomes, it doesn't mean that your theory holds water at all. This is why the smart people pick on you and laugh at you.

The only truth in Evolution is facts that we see. Evolutionary theory though is just that, and its not something that can be explained yet scientifically-if ever.
You do realize that evolution is back up by, you know, FACTS, right? Scientific facts. Just because you don't know what a THEORY really is, doesn't mean that you get to assume the rest of us are as uneducated as you are and don't know what we're talking about.

The arguments you have for Evolution, that is the facts of evolution that exist do not prove Evolutionary Theory.
It basically is proof, that's another thing you idiot fundies don't understand. We have plenty of proof, it's just that you haven't been in school enough years to recognize that. The evolution theory is indisputable at this point, no matter how hard you flail. Try picking up a book before you play with the big boys.


They also do not disprove Intelligent Design. If we cannot produce solid evidence as to why, we cannot say that the evolution did not take place because of intelligent design "redesigning" a species etc.
You have ZERO evidence that helps your case. Try again.

Intelligent Design is balked at by the Science community because it has ties to supernatural beliefs in a higher power.
Another misconception. It's balked at because it's based off of zero evidence and is some cooked up theory by a quack who thought he could shoe-horn god into his education. Science balks at anything that provides ZERO evidence for the ridiculous claims it makes.

But the same flaws in the belief of Intelligent Design and proving it scientifically plague Evolutionary Theory - and we can hypothesize why we think the changes take place, but we cannot concretely prove why. We can only say that it does.
Once again, another fundie has absolutely no working knowledge of evolution, therefore he thinks that it's equivalent to the fairy tales he tells his children. This is wrong. You are wrong. Give up now because you forever bury yourself in a pit of ignorance. You're already not doing too well on these forums, don't go making yourself look any worse by trying to force your misguided opinions on us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Intelligent Design is balked at by the Science community because it has ties to supernatural beliefs in a higher power.

But the same flaws in the belief of Intelligent Design and proving it scientifically plague Evolutionary Theory - and we can hypothesize why we think the changes take place, but we cannot concretely prove why. We can only say that it does.

Actually, "Intelligent Design" is balked at by the scientific community because it has absolutely no evidence to back it up. Evolution has a considerable amount of evidence to back it up, but doesn't have definitive proof. And that is why Evolution is a scientific theory, whereas "Intelligent Design", is not.

Actually, the very basis of the "Intelligent Design" argument is ignorance. It is an argument from ignorance.

It is saying,
Premise: We don't know how X complexity came to be
Conclusion: Therefore "God" must have created it

The premise is not based on knowledge, but on our ignorance. Where those who believe that ignorance is the basis for knowledge, I have no idea...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I will never understand why people insist on debating this issue. Nothing ever comes of it. No one reaches any sort of understanding. Both sides are so sure that they are right and the other is an idiot that no amount discussion by either side will ever make them think otherwise. It is an entirely pointless debate.
 

DeletedUser

Divest-Literacy would go a long way. My post took neither position except to say why you can prove neither position.

My post also stated Evolution does occur-something referred to as evolutionary facts. What Evolutionary Theory cannot conclude from that is why? What that means is, the facts-yes evidence of evolution doesn't disprove the adverse theory.

We know evolution does occur. We cannot prove beyond the hypothesis as to why. If you can-my advice is cash in, because no biologist has proven it beyond a theory yet. Evolutionary Facts and Evolutionary Theory are 2 totally and seperate things, a fact which you apparently are unable to distinguish from.

Another misconception. It's balked at because it's based off of zero evidence and is some cooked up theory by a quack who thought he could shoe-horn god into his education. Science balks at anything that provides ZERO evidence for the ridiculous claims it makes.


I think I did cover that part...
Intelligent Design cannot be proven or disproven because it would involve the proving or disproving of the existence of God. Cannot be done Scientifically.

If you could actually find evidence of it, that would put it on the same level as Evolutionary Theory. There is evidence of Evolution-Evolutionary Theory is the hypothesis behind why it takes place.

We have intelligent design, and there is nothing but conjecture and faith based belief in it-which means 0 in the scientific community.
 

DeletedUser

A theory is NOT a hypothesis. Evolution is NOT a hypothesis. Either this is a poor choice of words on your part, or you really don't even understand the most basic concepts of what is being discussed.
 

DeletedUser

Theory

1. contemplation or speculation.
2. guess or conjecture.

What does that have to do w/ facts???
With these definitions: You technically have the theory of intelligent design and the theory of evolution, so in essence ALL of us are just guessing. How can u debate that ???????
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Agreed-that was a -messed- up sentence after rereading because Evolution has gone beyond the testing of a typical hypothesis. Evolutionary Theory as a whole isn't 1 aspect of belief.

What I was after is that there are multiple parts of Evolutionary Theory, Natural Selection, Mendelian-combinations of the 2 etc.

We have seen the evidence, and theorized/hypothesized as to why. Theres solid arguments for a lot-but evolutionary theory is mostly accepted as a bioligical process-highly suspect for a theory for creation of life on the universe. Everytime they adapt or change the thoughts on one, we are again hypothesizing as to why. If it was 1 aspect, we wouldn't be continually adapting the theory based on new research and knowledge.

It wasn't the smartest to characterize the theory as a whole as a hypothesis-but there's a fine line that seperates a hypothesis from theory-a critical line, but a fine line.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I just love the principle of selection, for example:

We have A, which is fact and
We have c, which is fact ...
That does NOT automatically make B: FACT
 

DeletedUser

Theory

1. contemplation or speculation.
2. guess or conjecture.

What does that have to do w/ facts???
With these definitions: You technically have the theory of intelligent design and the theory of evolution, so in essence ALL of us are just guessing. How can u debate that ???????

Believe it or not, science defines a theory a little differently (and has different standards for what makes up a theory) than the dictionary.

Gravity is a scientific theory.
Alchemy is not a scientific theory.

Under the definition that you have posted, Alchemy, Astronomy, all manner of foolishness not supported by any evidence on down the line, and, of course, "Intelligent Design" are all theories. Does it really help your case to define a theory in such a way?
 

DeletedUser

We have seen the evidence, and theorized/hypothesized as to why. Theres solid arguments for a lot-but evolutionary theory is mostly accepted as a bioligical process-highly suspect for a theory for creation of life on the universe.

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. Are you now trying to encompass Evolution to include things like what the Big Bang is supposed to cover? Evolution would only cover life on Earth...that is only what it is supposed to cover. So, I guess I don't understand your point.

Everytime they adapt or change the thoughts on one, we are again hypothesizing as to why. If it was 1 aspect, we wouldn't be continually adapting the theory based on new research and knowledge.

If you are talking about the specifics of how this or that aspect of nature evolved, evolutionary theory has changed. It has modified to fit the evidence. But we haven't found any valid evidence that is refuted evolution as a whole (and we continue to test all of the time).

It wasn't the smartest to characterize the theory as a whole as a hypothesis-but there's a fine line that seperates a hypothesis from theory-a critical line, but a fine line.

Actually, there's quite a large line. The finer line is what separates a theory from a law.
 

DeletedUser

Gravity DID start as a theory but ended up with a scientifical solution.

Evolution is still JUST a theory.
 

DeletedUser

Gravity DID start as a theory but ended up with a scientifical solution.

Evolution is still JUST a theory.

Gravity is still a theory. It is impossible for us to test it in all circumstances throughout the universe.
 

DeletedUser

BUT if go by your own last response, we now have the LAW of gravity. Right ???

"Actually, there's quite a large line. The finer line is what separates a theory from a law." YOUR WORDS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top