Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[Juddog]

Now if only the same thing would happen in the states, we'd be set.

By the way - for all of the creationists out there - creationism is not a theory. It doesn't even test up to being a hypothesis, let alone a theory.

By the way - for the people saying evolution is "just a theory" - so is gravity. Go test it for me by jumping off of a building, and let's see how strong a theory really is?

 

[crashtestdummy]

Since there's been a lot of back and forth about what a "Scientific Theory" is, let me give a rundown of the requirements:

A theory starts with a hypothesis (what most people are talking about when they say "I have a theory about..."). A hypothesis is a constructed model that adequately explains a set of observed phenomena. Both Intelligent Design and Natural Selection fit this criteria as hypotheses for the origin and development of species.

In order to "graduate" to a theory, the hypothesis must also fit the requirement of being successfully and repeatably testable. The theory must make some kind of prediction that can be verified. For example, General Relativity predicted that gravity would be able to bend light. Many scientists took his paper as mere philosophizing until gravitational lensing was observed four years later.

In this sense, Intelligent Design does not qualify. There is no test to see if God made the universe and precisely designed every life form. If you can come up with one, please run it. I'm sure we'd all love to see your data.

Natural Selection is predictive. When Darwin proposed that humans derived from a common ancestor with apes, he suggested that there would be a fossil record that links us all the way back to that common ancestor. While the record is still very much incomplete, there are many intermediate hominids and hominoids that appear to lead back to a historic link with apes about 6 million years ago. We see the product of natural selection every day in our diseases, as influenza constantly changes to move between species, as bacteria become resistant to our drugs, as moths in England changed color with the industrial revolution.

This is not to say that Intelligent Design is inherently untrue (though there is no reason to believe it is), but rather it does not fit the criteria of scientific theory. As my very devout physics teacher once said "I know that God spoke to Muhammad, but there is no test to verify miracles. Therefore, miracles are not part of science!"

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Exhibit #6521 that cybersage is a ignoramus: he thinks all religions are theistic. What an idiot.

 

[soulcougher73]

Here is a novel idea. Just came to me. How about we teach science in science class and creationism in bible study classes? I know.. crazy right?

We can even one up it. No scientist will ever demand that science be taught in bible study class.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'll give you a theory, Evolution is god's creation and anyone who denies it is a sinner and going to hell.

(Pope should pay me for such creative writing, cause apparently they need it if this debate is still going on)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'll give you a theory, Evolution is god's creation and anyone who denies it is a sinner and going to hell.

In what way is that a theory?

 

[cybrsage]

...stupid stuff not worth repeating...

Show me a religion which worships space aliens who seeded life on Earth and guided its changes.

 

[cybrsage]

In what way is that a theory?

A theory is a proposed explaination whose status is still conjectural. In that way, his statement is a theory. It is not a scientific theory, but it is still a theory.

Used in the same way as looking at a table, seeing cat prints in the cake frosting, and saying "I have a theory about who messed up the cake".

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Show me a religion which worships space aliens who seeded life on Earth and guided its changes.

This would be Exhibit #6522 that you're an idiot.

http://www.rael.org/

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

A theory is a proposed explaination whose status is still conjectural. In that way, his statement is a theory.

Oh really? What does it explain? Individuals are not explanations.

Used in the same way as looking at a table, seeing cat prints in the cake frosting, and saying "I have a theory about who messed up the cake".

That isn't an explanation.

 

[cybrsage]

This would be Exhibit #6522 that you're an idiot.

http://www.rael.org/

Is it classified as a religion in the UK?

EDIT: AFAIK, it is not. In France and Belgium, it is considered a cult.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Is it classified as a religion in the UK?

You're a real piece of shit, y'know that? Take your moving goalposts and shove them right up your hemorrhoid-laden asshole, fuckwad.

http://uk.rael.org/page.php?1

EDIT: AFAIK, it is not. In France and Belgium, it is considered a cult.

Ah, the classic irregular declension in Religious Dipshit-ese

My religion
Your heresy
His cult

Fuck's sake, you're a tool.

 

[cybrsage]

That isn't an explanation.

It is if you continue the thought forward. I am sorry, I should have remembered that is something hard for you to do...I will do it for you:

I have a theory about who messed up the cake, it was the cat.

 

[cybrsage]

You're a real piece of shit, y'know that? Take your moving goalposts and shove them right up your hemorrhoid-laden asshole, fuckwad.

Wait...you are saying I am moving the goalposts when the topic is about the government of the UK not allowing ID in science class? It is moving the goalposts to say the religion has to be accepted by the government under discussion in order for it to be a religion in the area controlled by that government?

Ummm....what?

http://uk.rael.org/page.php?1

I was already there and could not find anywhere that it said the government of the UK granted official religion status to them. But since you show it as your support, you obviously already read it and know where it says it. Please post the snippet along with the url to that snippet, please.

You would not just blindly toss out a URL without actually reading the site you linked too, only idiots (to use your favorite adjective) would do that...so I know you read it on that site. Right?

 

[PingviN]

Here is a novel idea. Just came to me. How about we teach science in science class and creationism in bible study classes? I know.. crazy right?

So much truth in this. :thumbsup:

 

[Ktulu]

I'll give you a theory, Evolution is god's creation and anyone who denies it is a sinner and going to hell.

(Pope should pay me for such creative writing, cause apparently they need it if this debate is still going on)

Actually Catholics are taught to embrace science. You're thinking of Christian fundamentalist.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Show me a religion which worships space aliens who seeded life on Earth and guided its changes.

Scientology.

 

[heymrdj]

Since there's been a lot of back and forth about what a "Scientific Theory" is, let me give a rundown of the requirements:

A theory starts with a hypothesis (what most people are talking about when they say "I have a theory about..."). A hypothesis is a constructed model that adequately explains a set of observed phenomena. Both Intelligent Design and Natural Selection fit this criteria as hypotheses for the origin and development of species.

In order to "graduate" to a theory, the hypothesis must also fit the requirement of being successfully and repeatably testable. The theory must make some kind of prediction that can be verified. For example, General Relativity predicted that gravity would be able to bend light. Many scientists took his paper as mere philosophizing until gravitational lensing was observed four years later.

In this sense, Intelligent Design does not qualify. There is no test to see if God made the universe and precisely designed every life form. If you can come up with one, please run it. I'm sure we'd all love to see your data.

Natural Selection is predictive. When Darwin proposed that humans derived from a common ancestor with apes, he suggested that there would be a fossil record that links us all the way back to that common ancestor. While the record is still very much incomplete, there are many intermediate hominids and hominoids that appear to lead back to a historic link with apes about 6 million years ago. We see the product of natural selection every day in our diseases, as influenza constantly changes to move between species, as bacteria become resistant to our drugs, as moths in England changed color with the industrial revolution.

This is not to say that Intelligent Design is inherently untrue (though there is no reason to believe it is), but rather it does not fit the criteria of scientific theory. As my very devout physics teacher once said "I know that God spoke to Muhammad, but there is no test to verify miracles. Therefore, miracles are not part of science!"

There you have it. Get back to me when it becomes fact. Nothing has jumped between species. We haven't seen apes become humans or anywhere close and survive. Humans haven't genetically altered to 6 toes and have it survive to a point that generations upon generations of humans have 6 toes each and every time.

Nothing has been proven. Evidence of a so called fossil, which can't even realisitically have a date proven, is not evidence.

 

[cybrsage]

Personally, I have no idea why anyone is against evolution. The Hebrew words use in Genesis clearly imply that when God finished His work he finished the START of things, not the end of things. It is implied that the world and life would keep changing over time.

 

[Juddog]

There you have it. Get back to me when it becomes fact. Nothing has jumped between species. We haven't seen apes become humans or anywhere close and survive. Humans haven't genetically altered to 6 toes and have it survive to a point that generations upon generations of humans have 6 toes each and every time.

Nothing has been proven. Evidence of a so called fossil, which can't even realisitically have a date proven, is not evidence.

Are you seriously this stupid or are you just trolling? We already have seen evolution in action under a laboratory condition. Evolution is fact, it's directly observable. Evolution deniers are still fighting the theory of evolution, meanwhile scientists have already been putting that theory to use in developing vaccines, medicines, and genetic alteration.

We literally would not have vaccines if it weren't for our knowledge of evolution. You're debating something that is already in practice. Evolution has missing pieces which are discovered day by day. We already have the big picture, based upon observable occurrences; the only thing left at this point is to fill in the missing pieces over time.

What you're doing is the equivalent of seeing a puzzle that is 99% put together, but missing a few pieces, and saying that the whole puzzle is wrong just because those few pieces are missing.

 

[cybrsage]

Scientology.

The wiki article on them is a little ambiguous, it is a recognized religion in the UK? I know it is not in most of Europe, but not sure about the UK.

 

[cybrsage]

Are you seriously this stupid or are you just trolling? We already have seen evolution in action under a laboratory condition. Evolution is fact, it's directly observable.

You both are mixing two issues. Micro evolution (aka adaptation) has been observed. Macro evolution has never been observed - it takes too long.

Does not mean macro evolution is not true, but it has not been observed. Same thing with the formation of a star...it just takes too darn long to watch it happen.

 

[Pens1566]

Excellent thread for point out all the intellectually challenged. A++ would read again.

 

[randomrogue]

My ignore list grew because of this thread. I'm really not one to discriminate due to someone's lack of intelligence or education but there comes a point where it's just absurd and noise pollution. Some of you are just straight up stupid.

 

[sandorski]

Evolution vs Creationism summed up