• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

edge said:
1. Yes
Click to expand...

Ok, thank you for an honest answer. Next question: Why is your god the IDer and not the god of anther faith?

2. He works in my life because I have crossed that line of belief
3. It is correct things adapt and evolve
4. Micro had information and a machine like way to evolve
5. Are there things we don’t know about it and god …Yes
6. He created us from dust.
7. We are still evolving
8. Are we a part of that original line? No, it was re-created, but we have to follow the rules of this world and universe so we are evolving.
Click to expand...

I do not understand these answers. Can you rephrase? Can you please also point to which of my questions they are an answer for?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Do you believe that ID should be taught in public schools as an equal competing scientific theory to evolution?
Click to expand...

No not really but I do think that it should be taught as a philosophy, like in here.
 
Last edited:
edge said:
You should let dafydd in on this!:)
Click to expand...
I was being rather specific with Carl sagan's reference, and I highly recommend you read it before thinking it is in line with what the bible says.

Don't forget that the bible claims woman came from man's rib.
 
Simon39759 said:
... I am not convince that we are doing much evolving (in the commonest sense) right now, technological progress kinda cut the legs out of natural selection...
Click to expand...

We are still evolving - there is still genetic variation (and, with the amount of novel toxins and pollutants in the environment these days, perhaps more than ever), and there are still selection pressures. See Current Human Evolution for a (very) brief summary.
 
Taffer said:
Ok, thank you for an honest answer. Next question: Why is your god the IDer and not the god of anther faith?



I do not understand these answers. Can you rephrase? Can you please also point to which of my questions they are an answer for?
Click to expand...

1 through 4 are for you the 4 others are what else I think.

Next question: Why is your god the IDer and not the god of another faith?
Click to expand...
That's a tough one.
First off, from what I have seen you can't take reading just one of my incidents that are basically an extraordinary story, so you would call it an anecdote especially if I post a link with 50 years of extraordinary things I have encountered and witnessed.

No one in here has asked me how it’s going with the movies I was going to post for evidence to support my view on the mind and that we may be seeing as an evolution of it.

I really don’t think you want to know the truth.
You would just pass it off as a remark to my sanity and dismiss it all.

What I know about truth you would not accept.
Heck in my other thread some of you can’t even understand the correct translation of Jesus when he spoke about the sword that he brings.

From what I seen in this world is that… what Jesus tells us about it is correct.
Not so much in a scientific way but in the spiritual sense.
Even today there is a misunderstanding about what we see that manifests it’s self in our world on many levels.
I’ll give you a hint my story is called Spiritual world of the Fallen
I am still working on it and there’s a point where I go into science fiction and speculation.
It would make for a good movie maybe.
 
joobz said:
I was being rather specific with Carl sagan's reference, and I highly recommend you read it before thinking it is in line with what the bible says.

Don't forget that the bible claims woman came from man's rib.
Click to expand...

I know a little bit about Carl.
Why do you want to deveate?
Did the Bible get it right about dust or not, give it credit where it's due.

There's many, many ways you could interpret that line and that's another story.
 
Taffer said:
It is this ability of science to admit when it got something wrong which makes it infinitely more reliable than, for example, a book. I would put my trust in someone who admits when they made a mistake, than one who refuses to admit anything, even if they are demonstrably wrong.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Never said it wasn't.
About trust, well, if someone keeps changing his mind then the safe thing to do is withhold
judgement. Otherwise one will ride the roller coaster of changing opinions. I did and got tired of it.
 
Marduk said:
We didn't do philosophy at my school, so thats sorted
:p
Click to expand...

paximperium said:
I'm all for it since philosophy, especially ones based solely on logical fallacies, isn't taught in school
Click to expand...

Aepervius said:
I had philosophy at school, and we had logical course, and discourse about various classic and modern philosopher.

None of that drivel written by edge here, is philosophy.
Click to expand...

Yes, the only appropriate place for ID in the schools is on a test at the end of a solid logic/philosophy course. It would be an essay question:

"Explain all the things that are wrong with ID."

Other than that, it's a waste of time.
 
Aepervius said:
When you are pointed out that one of the basis for belief *YOU* use is an obvious lie, that should bring you to maybe , I don't know, discard that lie. If you don't, and still decide to use it as basis for your belief, that tell everybody something about you, you realize that ?
Click to expand...

That's a heck of a word salad you got there brother. Are you copying my word salad style?
Please rephrase the question so I can understand it. Thanx!
 
Radrook said:
About trust, well, if someone keeps changing his mind then the safe thing to do is withhold
judgement. Otherwise one will ride the roller coaster of changing opinions. I did and got tired of it.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between changing your mind and refining your conclusions. The basics of evolution have been refined, but that's not the same as if the scientific community was continuously doing 180-degree changes of opinion on things.
 
Radrook said:
Of course it is. Never said it wasn't.
About trust, well, if someone keeps changing his mind then the safe thing to do is withhold
judgement. Otherwise one will ride the roller coaster of changing opinions. I did and got tired of it.
Click to expand...

I respect your position on this, but I personally think you are coming at the problem from the wrong frame of mind. I do not consider changing of scientific theory a 'ride on the roller coaster'. Instead of thinking "oh, they've changed their minds again", I think "well, that's interesting, now we know more then we did before, I'm glad we can update our thinking to match reality more closely". Or something along those lines.

The point I'm trying to make is that I do not equate constantly changing one's mind (something which can be annoying in a person) with changing and advancing scientific theory (something which only leads to better understanding). At this moment, the modern synthesis is the best theory to explain the wide variation of life we see around us. Does this mean I think it is true to a absolutely certain degree? No, but then I consider nothing every absolutely certain (yes, including this statement, but that's for another thread). If tomorrow new evidence comes to light that, in fact, there are magical pixies in our cells which run on little treadmills to make us work, and this evidence withstood scrutiny and testing, then any resulting theory which explains this fact in a parsimonious way will be happily accepted by me and, I would hope, other scientists. My certainty in anything, including theories, is provisional and only as solid as the evidence which supports it.
 
Radrook said:
That's a heck of a word salad you got there brother. Are you copying my word salad style?
Please rephrase the question so I can understand it. Thanx!
Click to expand...

You've presented a litany of videos, which you claim support ID.
A solid evaluation of their substance was presented.
Do you still believe those videos support ID?
What about the video which was clearly a deceitful attack against Dawkins (and in no way represented support of ID)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom