- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Scientific Establishment Is Finally Starting To Take Intelligent Design Seriously
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:12 pm to the_truman_shitshow
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:12 pm to the_truman_shitshow
quote:
(Then what common ancestral line do you think we evolved from?)
Adam and Eve.
Amen, bro.
That ANY body somehow believes that the logic and "science" of "Evolution" is remotely possible with ALL the info on
genetic...blows my mind.
The function of a single cell is more complicated than the machinations of New York City. This according to renown scientist and author Michael Behe ('Darwin's BLACK BOX')
1
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:14 pm to Flats
Evolution can be supported by the scientific processes and has been
You can make hypothesis about things and test them
It can’t be proven which is why it’s a Scientific theory not law.
But you can really test intelligent design.
Generally science to fix study looks at something we don’t know the answer to and tries to figure out what the answer is.
Intelligent design essentially Gives up on that because we haven’t figured into it yet.
It’s pure faith based.
You can make hypothesis about things and test them
It can’t be proven which is why it’s a Scientific theory not law.
But you can really test intelligent design.
Generally science to fix study looks at something we don’t know the answer to and tries to figure out what the answer is.
Intelligent design essentially Gives up on that because we haven’t figured into it yet.
It’s pure faith based.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:As you know, you are conflating primitive worship, rationale, and belief with the existence they address.
The distance between "something designed and started this" is as far from "this was done by the Abrahamic deity (who cares who I frick and wants me to abstain from pork and shrimp)" as the evolutionary distance between a virus and a human.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:15 pm to thetempleowl
quote:
So you don't believe in evolution?
Jesus, the crazies are coming out.
Stay away from mirrors, Bonzo.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:17 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Evolution can be supported by the scientific processes and has been
Patently FALSE.
(Now if you can provide your best example where this is PROVEN through ANY "scientific process", let's see it.)
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:20 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Evolution can be supported by the scientific processes and has been
You should read my post again; I said SOME of the claims about evolution. Some aspects of evolution we've observed, but some of the claims are pure faith-based, as you put it. They just don't like to admit that.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:24 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:Yet atheist or otherwise, and whether by singularity or sentient source, infinite existence remains the conundrum.
always was," which is just a differing form of hand waving
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:24 pm to Flats
Sure but that’s irrelevant when comparingnitntonintelegent design.
Studies indicate that while we don’t fully understand it, evolutions it most likely how life on earth diversified.
Now, we know there are natural selective factors to that, and if you’re a person of faith nature and g-d are no different.
So at that point it’s moot. But going after science for not “studying” that aspect when it’s more likely the work for philosophy is misplaced.
Studies indicate that while we don’t fully understand it, evolutions it most likely how life on earth diversified.
Now, we know there are natural selective factors to that, and if you’re a person of faith nature and g-d are no different.
So at that point it’s moot. But going after science for not “studying” that aspect when it’s more likely the work for philosophy is misplaced.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:26 pm to Liberator
I said It cannot be proven only supported and it has.
Someone had the hypothesis that if Humans and Aprs were actually the closest living evolutionary relatives we’d share more DNA than any other animals.
That’s the hypothesis and the test was sequencing and comparing DNA
The out coke was that we do. So it supports the hypothesis.
That study has been done I dont Think anyone disagrees.
We see bacteria evolve in real time.
We see natural selection alter populations.
Now it’s a process that takes millions of years so you’re right it’s impossible to study in real time in less than 2 centuries.
Someone had the hypothesis that if Humans and Aprs were actually the closest living evolutionary relatives we’d share more DNA than any other animals.
That’s the hypothesis and the test was sequencing and comparing DNA
The out coke was that we do. So it supports the hypothesis.
That study has been done I dont Think anyone disagrees.
We see bacteria evolve in real time.
We see natural selection alter populations.
Now it’s a process that takes millions of years so you’re right it’s impossible to study in real time in less than 2 centuries.
This post was edited on 5/19/22 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:28 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Sure but that’s irrelevant when comparingnitntonintelegent design.
It's irrelevant that they accuse ID of being "not science" as they simultaneously make claims that aren't backed up by the scientific method?
Ok.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:30 pm to Flats
What claims do you feel aren’t supported or aren’t in some way testable?
Every Hypothesis lacks support before they experiment.
The problem With ID is how to you test the hypothesis?
Every Hypothesis lacks support before they experiment.
The problem With ID is how to you test the hypothesis?
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:31 pm to DreauxB2015
quote:
Come on man . A fart from nothing exploded and made everything . Nothing intelligent about any of it . Trust the science .
funny because per the law of conservation of angular momentum not even the BIG BANG was possible.
that law above plus laws of thermodynamics plus paranormal are all evidence of a creator of the universe.
but the left hates that type of science.
big bang and neo darwinism are joined at the hip
there is zero empirical evidence of macro evolution aka neo darwinism.
micro evolution is fact tho like within breeds of dogs and such
#NOTMYSCIENCE
This post was edited on 5/19/22 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:32 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Someone had the hypothesis that if Humans and Aprs were actually the closest living evolutionary relatives we’d share more DNA than any other animals.
This is a matter of interpretation.
Two things being similarly designed is also evidence of a single maker OR a copycat.
You are taking the naturalist view that nothing supernatural can or has occurred. However, ultimately, you run straight into the laws of thermodynamics and there is no getting around them.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:34 pm to squid_hunt
quote:
you run straight into the laws of thermodynamics and there is no getting around them.
bingo see my post above
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:37 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
It takes a retard to look at this design and walk away denying it was designed
I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:37 pm to DreauxB2015
quote:
Theres literally no evidence for this . So will these other apes eventually become humans?
Before I answer let me just ask you.. do you believe in any form of evolution...macro or micro?
This post was edited on 5/19/22 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:42 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
What claims do you feel aren’t supported or aren’t in some way testable?
Their entire tree of life, which conveniently stops just short of abiogenesis. I'm all for finding out what random mutations + natural selection can accomplish, seriously. I think we have an imperative to figure out how things work and use them to our benefit. But when you let your worldview enter the picture and go far, far beyond what we can observe and test and just spackle the entire thing with "millions and millions of years", that's not science.
I completely agree that ID gets into meta-physics and cannot be rigorously tested per the scientific method. My point is that little technicality never stops them from making claims when those claims support their worldview. There's nothing wrong with saying "we know evolution can do this, but we're not sure it can do that." They can't bring themselves to say that.
This post was edited on 5/19/22 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:43 pm to Liberator
quote:
That ANY body somehow believes that the logic and "science" of "Evolution" is remotely possible with ALL the info on
genetic...blows my mind.
Then how would you explain sickle cell?
Posted on 5/19/22 at 2:55 pm to Flats
I understand there is speculation but so far very little of what we have stufied counters that ideas
The fossil record tends to hold up and point Int bath direction
And absolutely it’s incomplete.
The fossil record tends to hold up and point Int bath direction
And absolutely it’s incomplete.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 3:01 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
I understand there is speculation but so far very little of what we have stufied counters that ideas
The fossil record tends to hold up and point Int bath direction
No offense, but I don't think you've studied this topic that much. You should watch some debates and you'll see just how much ideology comes into play. It's not all science despite what you learned in college.
Page 5 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News