29 Dec 05
This could fall under religion aswell, but I thought it would be more fit here. The US has been having trouble lately with some people actually considering intelligent design (the theory that there was a omnicient being helping man through evolution) to be in league with Natural Selection. And strangely enough, it is only the strictly religious faculties that believe in intelligent design, no others give peanuts for its validity. Do you think that Intelligent Design should actually studied? Do you believe that it would be logical to suddenly fill in the mysterious spaces in evolution to be a being helping us along, or is it just horrible drivel?
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by prosoccerIntelligent design is B.S. It's not even a theory.
This could fall under religion aswell, but I thought it would be more fit here. The US has been having trouble lately with some people actually considering intelligent design (the theory that there was a omnicient being helping man through evolution) to be in league with Natural Selection. And strangely enough, it is only the strictly religious faculties ...[text shortened]... he mysterious spaces in evolution to be a being helping us along, or is it just horrible drivel?
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by prosoccerAt last count there were 261 posts in one thread in the spiritual forum on this topic.
This could fall under religion aswell, but I thought it would be more fit here. The US has been having trouble lately with some people actually considering intelligent design (the theory that there was a omnicient being helping man through evolution) to be in league with Natural Selection. And strangely enough, it is only the strictly religious faculties ...[text shortened]... he mysterious spaces in evolution to be a being helping us along, or is it just horrible drivel?
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by prosoccerI can't say this enough times,
This could fall under religion aswell, but I thought it would be more fit here. The US has been having trouble lately with some people actually considering intelligent design (the theory that there was a omnicient being helping man through evolution) to be in league with Natural Selection. And strangely enough, it is only the strictly religious faculties ...[text shortened]... he mysterious spaces in evolution to be a being helping us along, or is it just horrible drivel?
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY
Evolution is a valid scientific theory, while Intelligent design has no evidence whatsoever backing it up and does not actually make any claims with predictive power or attempt to explain anything other than by just invoking miracles for minutia of biology which we need a little longer to understand through scientific research.
29 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowI beg your pardon sir, ID is indeed a theory. It simply comes from a greatly differing train of thought. Simply because it is not proven through scientific means does not negate its relevance as a possibility. Science, while the most wonderous manner we have developed to understand the universe around us, is inherantly flawed and limited due to its reliance upon its observer (us). This is a basic fact.
I can't say this enough times,
[b]INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A THEORY
Evolution is a valid scientific theory, while Intelligent design has no evidence whatsoever backing it up and does not actually make any claims with predictive power or attempt to explain anything other than by just invoking miracles for minutia of biology which we need a little longer to understand through scientific research.[/b]
Your statement here is inherently dictated by opinions based upon assumptions, and thusly fails to refute anything, regardless of how many times you make your absurd statement.
In case you are under the mistaken understanding that a theory need have scientific basis:
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/theory
Best Regards,
Omnislash
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by OmnislashI'm pretty sure that the judge in Harrisburg, PA had it right when he said that Intelligent Design is an untestable alternative hypothesis to evolution. It is the untestable part that makes it not science. A theory that is based in faith cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven. Proving or disproving faith contradicts faith therefore it self-destructs.
I beg your pardon sir, ID is indeed a theory. It simply comes from a greatly differing train of thought. Simply because it is not proven through scientific means does not negate its relevance as a possibility. Science, while the most wonderous manner we have developed to understand the universe around us, is inherantly flawed and limited due to its relianc ...[text shortened]... d have scientific basis:
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/theory
Best Regards,
Omnislash
Websters defines faith as;
Faith (f=ath), n.
Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is
declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his
authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.
1913 Webster
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by OmnislashSorry, Omni.
I beg your pardon sir, ID is indeed a theory. It simply comes from a greatly differing train of thought. Simply because it is not proven through scientific means does not negate its relevance as a possibility. Science, while the most wonderous manner we have developed to understand the universe around us, is inherantly flawed and limited due to its relianc ...[text shortened]... d have scientific basis:
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/theory
Best Regards,
Omnislash
I think what he meant to say is ID is not a scientific theory. Scientific theories are basically the highest proof possible - they cannot be disproved.
29 Dec 05
Originally posted by OmnislashScientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
I beg your pardon sir, ID is indeed a theory. It simply comes from a greatly differing train of thought. Simply because it is not proven through scientific means does not negate its relevance as a possibility. Science, while the most wonderous manner we have developed to understand the universe around us, is inherantly flawed and limited due to its relianc ...[text shortened]... d have scientific basis:
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/theory
Best Regards,
Omnislash
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.
An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
29 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by abejnoodIntelligent design? Never heard of it in school when I was coming up. What basis would the curriculum be designed on. Is it Bible study? Does it offer the "possibility " that God did design the universe? If so, Christian parents have the obligation of teaching their children the Bibilical foundations of "being". Christians know the ruler of this world is Satan, so let them teach whatever they want in school....Christians teach your children according to the Bible and you have nothing to worry about. I'm sick of Bullshit being thrust in the limelight of the media. We got Islamofascists to kill!! We are in cultural WW3. Concentrate on that-not on what to teach in school unless it prepares our children to be engineers, teachers, scientists, doctors, lawyers (honest ones), etc...Strangely enough, teaching strictly evolution is bullshit, as in "the theory of evolution".... 😉...Creationism can be taught in a scientific format...be creative....the birds arriving on the day and hour at San Juan Capistrano, CA every year...that's as creative as a diamond-encrusted rolex watch.....
Intelligent design is B.S. It's not even a theory.