Int. Design/evolution Debate Video

[amaterasu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7gZhksK9 Sw

I think its safe to say the folks on fhe creative design side were pwned by the evolution folks. The most evidence they had was the complexity of a bacterial flagellum, whereas the evolution side came very prepared and caused the id folks to resort to funny tactics.

Are there any better & up to date debates between intelligent design and evolution?

P.S. Not sure if this thread never went through or got deleted the first time, but there is no reason to delete this thread as the int. design/evolution debate is just as political in nature as it is scientific.

[amaterasu]

So this thread isn't deleted, let me state my opinion: evolution is the strongest theory of life right now but I don't believe it in dogmatically as some tend to do. After all, it's a theory, not a fact.

[Victory]

At 10/12/09 01:59 PM, amaterasu wrote: P.S. Not sure if this thread never went through or got deleted the first time, but there is no reason to delete this thread as the int. design/evolution debate is just as political in nature as it is scientific.

It isn't a scientific debate. The scientific community resoundingly accepts evolution as correct.

At 10/12/09 02:04 PM, amaterasu wrote: After all, it's a theory, not a fact.

Evolution has both factual and theoretical aspects to it, actually.

[amaterasu]

At 10/12/09 03:13 PM, Victory wrote:

At 10/12/09 01:59 PM, amaterasu wrote: P.S. Not sure if this thread never went through or got deleted the first time, but there is no reason to delete this thread as the int. design/evolution debate is just as political in nature as it is scientific.

It isn't a scientific debate. The scientific community resoundingly accepts evolution as correct.

That is partially correct. The concept of evolution does have firmly proven facets, but there is much of a theoretical side. Being a theory, there is always room for scientific debate of another theory can prove it has a better explanation. This kind of thing happens all the time in other fields of science, and evolution is not immune. The scientific community does not as a whole accept evolution as "fact", which is what you imply when you say "correct". The community accepts it as the most plausible theory right now. There are a good handful of scientists who hold the unbreakable position that evolution is the explain-all for life on this plant, but in my eyes they are practicing dogmatism, which is not a good quality to have as a scientist.

At 10/12/09 02:04 PM, amaterasu wrote: After all, it's a theory, not a fact.

Evolution has both factual and theoretical aspects to it, actually.

See above.

[amaterasu]

In other words, it is indeed a valid topic for scientific debate, however the one I posted was a rather sad example...which I was pointing out..

[Victory]

At 10/12/09 03:58 PM, amaterasu wrote: That is partially correct. The concept of evolution does have firmly proven facets, but there is much of a theoretical side. Being a theory, there is always room for scientific debate of another theory can prove it has a better explanation.

Intelligent design is not part of that debate.

It has no scientific basis whatsoever and is only a controversy in the eyes of the public.

The scientific community does not as a whole accept evolution as "fact",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_su pport_for_evolution

"Although in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute,"

It basically does.

There are a good handful of scientists who hold the unbreakable position that evolution is the explain-all for life on this plant, but in my eyes they are practicing dogmatism,

Explain why with regards to the fact there is overwhelming evidence.

[SolInvictus]

At 10/12/09 03:58 PM, amaterasu wrote: Being a theory

before engaging in a debate it is best to learn the terminology used in such debates.

[The-General-Public]

New Topic: Flat/Round Earth Debate

[Elfer]

At 10/12/09 03:58 PM, amaterasu wrote: The scientific community does not as a whole accept evolution as "fact", which is what you imply when you say "correct". The community accepts it as the most plausible theory right now.

No, pretty much everyone who's a scientist in a relevant field accepts evolution in the general sense as a fact. We have seen it happen in the lab. Whether or not evolution happens is really no longer up for debate, since we have ongoing first-hand evidence.

Evolution is the most plausible theory in the same sense that the Earth rotating is the most plausible theory for the sun rising and setting over the horizon, or the way that polymerization reactions are the most plausible theory for how plastics are formed.

Yes, it is, in a sense, technically possible that evolution is false. However, the only way it could be found false would be through a series of discoveries so absurd that it would invalidate all scientific inquiry.

[aviewaskewed]

I do not understand why Creationists are fighting so hard against the theory of Evolution. It's basically proven, but it, by itself, does not in fact DISPROVE their CENTRAL thesis "a supreme being created all that is" all it does is unseat and disprove the method of such (that man was created whole and entire as he is now essentially, in one day).

Haven't the major religions been adapting to new information they couldn't supress or outright deny until it went away since the dawn of forever? Just incorporate evolution into the structure. But I guess since it requires an alteration to Genesis, which is the beginning story, it might throw too much else into question. There really is nothing to debate here though beyond "should the religious continue to fight a battle that's already lost?"

[TheShrike]

At 10/12/09 03:58 PM, amaterasu wrote: The scientific community does not as a whole accept evolution as "fact", which is what you imply when you say "correct". The community accepts it as the most plausible theory right now.

What planet do you live on?

Evolution isn't a theory. It is an observation.

The origin of species is, on the other hand, a theory.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/14/09 09:41 PM, TheShrike wrote: Evolution isn't a theory. It is an observation.

nah it's a theory.

What matters however is that the meaning of the word 'theory' is different when talked used in science.

[michelinman]

At 10/12/09 11:37 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I do not understand why Creationists are fighting so hard against the theory of Evolution. It's basically proven, but it, by itself, does not in fact DISPROVE their CENTRAL thesis "a supreme being created all that is" all it does is unseat and disprove the method of such (that man was created whole and entire as he is now essentially, in one day).

Because most people who believe the bible is the word of god are irrational. For shits sake they believe a man lived inside a whale for 40 days. They feel that by disproving the method that god created everything, that it disproves the bible. And the bible is the word of god, and therefore cannot be disproven. They're the type of people you see screaming "nuh uh, nuh uh" in arguments.

Haven't the major religions been adapting to new information they couldn't supress or outright deny until it went away since the dawn of forever? Just incorporate evolution into the structure.

They will once it becomes even more proven to the point where if you disagree with it you're a complete dumbass. Then the bible will warp and twist itself to fit the times once again. I wonder how much of that book has been untouched since it was first written?

But I guess since it requires an alteration to Genesis, which is the beginning story, it might throw too much else into question.

Bingo.

There really is nothing to debate here though beyond "should the religious continue to fight a battle that's already lost?"

Of course they will. They'll just continue on with the "Fine, but don't come crying to me when you're in a lake of fire" stab like anyone with half a brain actually takes them serious. I am very disappoint.

[poxpower]

At 10/12/09 11:37 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I do not understand why Creationists are fighting so hard against the theory of Evolution. It's basically proven, but it, by itself, does not in fact DISPROVE their CENTRAL thesis

Creationists are bible literalists ( which is a religious position that actually makes sense as opposed to the pick and choose approach most christians employ ).

So given that, they can't ignore things like the flood and Genesis. Evolution ( and modern science...) blows all that shit out of the water entirely.

That's how religion works. They starts eons ago when people don't know anything, then make tons of crazy claims to explain those. After that, every time a new piece of evidence or social changes comes along that contradicts their religion, they fight it. Then, 2-3 generations later, that new thing becomes too widely accepted for the majority of them to still deny it so they move on to the next new thing.

Though I think they're just about at the end of their rope at this point. But hey they're still resisting gayness and all that stuff so hurraaaaay.

[Agentrok]

Roll a die,and predict a number. Did it come up with your number? Maybe. This debate is very similar. While both could happen,there is no solid proof for either. I think that elitists on either side are unnecesary. It is not possible to prove either.

[jonnyrules935]

The way I understand things, creationism is a misunderstanding of the Bible's nature. This Holy book is not intended to be factual in any way, it has its purpose in explaining things that cannot be explained by what greeks called logos, a scientific explanation. When no scientific or logical explaination can be given, they uses muthos, myths in English. Now taking a myth for reality is easy, since it generally falls under a certain logical devellopement, only its not proven with facts.

In a few words it means that the Genesis cannot be taken as a fact since it is by definition a myth and not a scientific research.

[Drakim]

At 10/15/09 07:35 PM, Agentrok wrote: Roll a die,and predict a number. Did it come up with your number? Maybe. This debate is very similar. While both could happen,there is no solid proof for either. I think that elitists on either side are unnecesary. It is not possible to prove either.

Yes there is. Stop being an asshole and just saying random things. There is tons of evidence of evolution.

[bgraybr]

At 10/12/09 02:04 PM, amaterasu wrote: So this thread isn't deleted, let me state my opinion: evolution is the strongest theory of life right now but I don't believe it in dogmatically as some tend to do. After all, it's a theory, not a fact.

...and the sun orbits the Earth!

Little details like that don't matter. The goal of Christianity is to become more like Christ. Christ believed in peace and brotherhood. I highly doubt that he cared if the Earth revolved around the sun or not, or if he was hung by his wrists when he was crucified and not his hands, if all species were created in the beginning or if they evolved. Thats just bullshit that the powerful churches made up so that they could control people better. Why do you trust the bible? It was written hundreds of years after Christ's death, and has been mistranslated and misinterpreted ever since.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/15/09 09:50 PM, bgraybr wrote: Little details like that don't matter. The goal of Christianity is to become more like Christ. Christ believed in peace and brotherhood.

Matthew 10:34 - "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"