User Tag List

First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 162

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Are you referring to "Recapitulation theory"? I believe this was debunked a long time ago.
    No, not that theory specifically, which seems a little metaphysical. I read the "primitive gills" bit in an Asimov book from 1991. Note that I was kidding about it sealing the deal, I've always thought evolution stood to reason.




  2. #52
    EvanTheClown (ETC) Clownmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    2
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    965

    Default

    ^ The Bird is the Word
    [youtube=jXiruaPb9yg]The Bird is the Word[/youtube]

    Because you can't spell "Slaughter" without "Laughter"

  3. #53
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvanTheClown View Post
    ^ The Bird is the Word
    [youtube=jXiruaPb9yg]The Bird is the Word[/youtube]
    haha i saw that one online last night...is that like actaully a song? {goes to look on itunes}

  4. #54
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    No, not that theory specifically, which seems a little metaphysical. I read the "primitive gills" bit in an Asimov book from 1991. Note that I was kidding about it sealing the deal, I've always thought evolution stood to reason.



    It sounds like the same idea going by a different name kinda like Shell Shock and Battle Fatigue.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  5. #55

    Default

    I really think this debate is rather pointless. As Peguy pointed out, evolution does not address the question of how the first animal life came into being, only how it evolved. I don't think any theory that leaves this question open can rightly be said to conflict with theism.

    As for ID, it merely posits that an intelligent consciousness could have created the universe and the life within it. It's not a "how" idea, it's a "why" idea. It can't possibly conflict with any scientific theory save one that would attempt to explain goings on pre-Big Bang. It's not inherently a creationist idea, but because creationists have latched onto it as a way to try to bully their beliefs into school classrooms, it has become identified with them to its detriment.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  6. #56
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I really think this debate is rather pointless. As Peguy pointed out, evolution does not address the question of how the first animal life came into being, only how it evolved. I don't think any theory that leaves this question open can rightly be said to conflict with theism.
    God of the gaps...eh? they lost evolution, so now they all retreat to abiogenesis? dont you all see a pattern here? of retreat, regroup, retreat, regroup...its rather humorous...

    Quote Originally Posted by theistic abiogenesis + naturalistic evolution makes no sense
    if God finely tuned the universe to produce life, why would he have to violate the laws of that finely tuned universe in order to get life started? To argue that life would never arise in this universe without divine help is to say that this universe was specifically designed not to produce life. He can't have both a universe finely tuned to produce life and a life that can only arise by miraculous intervention. But once he has chosen, he will have to get the facts straight...
    naturalistic evolution after theistic abiogenesis probably makes the least sense for the above reasons...

    As for ID, it merely posits that an intelligent consciousness could have created the universe and the life within it. It's not a "how" idea, it's a "why" idea. It can't possibly conflict with any scientific theory save one that would attempt to explain goings on pre-Big Bang. It's not inherently a creationist idea, but because creationists have latched onto it as a way to try to bully their beliefs into school classrooms, it has become identified with them to its detriment.
    creationism and intelligent design are like shell shock and battle fatigue: same fucking thing. Look no further than the "DISCOVERY INSTITUTE" and you will see that its the same people who have concocted a new name for the same theory. I know that you are saying creationist latched on, but like that quote from Peguy on secular creationists, these are religious people in denial. Intelligent design either refers to creationism or refers to nothing at all: the theory makes no predictions and the very fact that its a metaphysical "why" rather than a "how", makes it religious and on the same level as creationism (even if it reportedly accepted evolution after biogenesis).

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    God of the gaps...eh? they lost evolution, so now they all retreat to biogenesis? dont you all see a pattern here? of retreat, regroup, retreat, regroup...its rather humorous...
    This would only apply to people who started as strict creationists and looked for a soft landing when the veracity of that belief proved troublesome. You can't paint every theist as a creationist who's abandoning their belief in an effort to build consensus.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    681

    Default

    If the question up for debate was supposed to be about the origin of life, why not just switch it to Abiogenesis vs. Creationism instead of Evolution vs. Creationism? Evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt, I don't expect mountains of evidence opposing it to suddenly appear any time soon. And were it wrong, all of modern biology and medicine would be bullshit that shouldn't work. Not believing in Evolution is merely an appeal to ignorance, willful ignorance.

    Abiogenesis would be much more useful to discuss because of it is still considered a hypothesis, not enough evidence has been collected to deem it a theory.

  9. #59
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    How do you know the external world exists? (seriously.)
    I said that our experiences (as in the very sensation of experiencing) in the *very moment* were undeniable...not that the external world was undeniable.

    However, I dont think we need to be absolutely certain about the external world being *real*. A cartesian demon could theoretically be sending the *experience* of being an all powerful creator to God... so im not sure any *thing* could ever really be 100% sure. Rather than wallow in anal retentive agnosticism, i think most are happy accepting that the external world is real.

    Second, it doesnt make sense to talk about this world being an illusion unless there is some other more true reality that exists and CAN BE DISCOVERED. For if we can never discover *the true reality*, then for all intensive purposes, this would be our reality. It only makes practical difference to discuss our world as an illusion if there actually is some other reality you have in mind, that is fundamentally different and deserves more of our attention. The matrix had credibility as an illusion because there were 'glitches' and people who could make you aware of the 'true reality' (as well as machinery in the real world that drove the matrix). take those differences away and the matrix would basically be the exact same as reality (ie no important difference between reality and illusion).

  10. #60
    Senior Member Samurai Drifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    116

    Default

    As a Biology student, this so-called "controversy" has the ability to directly affect me, so I've taken notice of it.

    First of all, let's get this out of the way- Intelligent Design is creationism, just dressed up to look more scientific so it can be sneaked into public schools.

    The basis of Intelligent Design/Creationism is that each species was separately designed by a higher power. The first problem with this claim is that it is untestable and unfalsifiable, and therefore cannot be classified as science.

    The second problem with it is that there are veritable mountains of evidence supporting the common ancestry of species. Contrary to the assertions of the Bible thumpers, we do have intermediate forms, and we do have nearly complete fossil records of species.

    An amusing point of the issue is that when debating, Creationists group multiple theories under the umbrella of evolution: abiogenesis, the big bang, etc. They are so ignorant of the topics they're attempting to debate that they can't even discern the difference between theories.

    There is so much literature out there debunking Intelligent Design/Creationism I don't think it's necessary to take all the effort to summarize it all.

    Bottom line is, humans didn't evolve from apes, humans are apes. Believing that species were created separately, or that the Earth is 10,000 years old, is a small step above believing the Earth is flat.
    Hands in the air, it's a robbery.

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution vs. Creationism
    By Frosty in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 04-18-2015, 03:44 PM
  2. Intelligent Design
    By Little_Sticks in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-26-2012, 01:52 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Worth vs. Intelligence
    By Jonny in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 08:30 PM
  4. Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design - good take on this issue
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 07:20 AM
  5. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 05:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO