 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 152 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613449 Today 2 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ha funny how the prominent supporters of evolution/darwinism are biologists and paleontologists (i.e. people who actually know about that sort of thing) whereas the prominent supporters of creationism/intelligent design are just wankers in southern US churches who have little or no knowledge or training in biological science. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Now that everyone is calming down after this evolution circle-jerk, is a nice link to a site with slightly higher debating standards that what I've observed here. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
eh.. read what you wrote... I'll give you some clues 1: believing in intelligent design excludes believing in evolution. 2: if you don't believe in evolution, you're not interested in studying it nor current biology. 3: If you don't study biology, you can't become a biologist. you do the maths.. being an educated biologist doesn't automatically make you right. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i dont see why science and religion cant co-exist.. if there were a god that created this place (the bit that science cant explain) then why would he tinker with it (all the time)? surely he would let it evolve (at least till shit hits the fan - cue the prophets and jesus?). i dont really see how anyone can deny evolution these days - there are fossils dating millions of years. gives a very accessible insight into to the scientific side of things. i felt pretty naive after reading that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
believe it or not, it has actually been argued by some creationists that the fossil evidence (and any other evidence that contradicts their model of the world) was created by SATAN to deceive humans into rejecting the biblical account of creation. science and religion can coexist happily. the problem is attempting to call religion "science" so that it can be taught in publicly funded schools. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I dunno, I still see IDers as fringe dwelling kooks living in nooks and crannies of uncertainty until they're explained, then moving on to other nooks and crannies. Things only seem irreducibly complex until they're, er, reduced. Eukaryotic cells were in some ways inexplicable until Lynn Margulis hypothesized that chloroplasts and mitochondria were originally free-living cells that became symbiotic in their hosts as a result of failed digestion. It seems to me that ID is a faith in our inability to expand knowledge into areas of doubt (abiogenesis, for example) and a reveling in the improbability of specific outcomes. How can ID be researched and studied other than by pointing at the state of the art in science and bemoaning that it isn't omniscient? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah that is a problem.. i recently saw a derren brown show where he blagged a live american audience that he was a spiritualist.. he'd say things like.. i have someone called john with me now, tall with dark hair, and there was always someone in the crowd that thought it was their dead relative - basically the moral of the story was people will believe anything if they want to believe it. sad but true.. i mean satan creating fossils? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The whole problem with this argument every time it comes up, and thousands of other arguments, is that people have this view of science being something very arrogant and definetive, and that science is supposedly truth. It is not. Science is a process, the most logical process to deduce the most information from things. For the sake of getting anywhere you have to build upon conclusions, which in many cases are wrong or contain errors, but I think most people would agree this is just an extension of any rational investigative process and is the closest you can reasonably expect to get to solid fact. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, you're talking about peer reviewed scientific journals. it's the saftey check for scientists making outrageous claims. for example, the korean scientist that recently claimed huge advances in cloning. turns out he faked a lot of his results. when a scientist tries to publish work based on bogus results, it's like chumming the waters. other scientists swarm in like sharks because you can make a name for yourself by disputing research as well as breaking new ground. I.D. has no such checks and balances outside of real scientific journals. They often try to site actual articles to back up their claims, but virtually always, they take their quotes and data waaaay out of context. Don't know if this has been discussed here yet, but is an excellent resource to refute practically every claim made by a creationist or I.D. proponant ever presented. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sorry fleetmouse, but I think you're thowing the baby out with the bathwater. What is so anti-intellectual about the idea that we can reliably detect the effects of intelligence? How is it reveling in ignorance to think that life might be a product of bio-engineering? And if intelligent design is inherently religious, exactly which one is the concept itself endorsing? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How is it reveling in ignorance to think that life might be a product of bio-engineering? Because there's not one iota of positive evidence for that conjecture. What do you call it when you follow around scientists doing real, primary research and heckle them that they haven't answered every question of origins perfectly? Do you call that science? Because I sure as fuck don't. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well peer review is a good system but it's still fallible... more to the point is that no scientific conclusion is complete without it's methods and the other conclusions it relies on. Peer review comes in because not everyone can read/understand any given research paper. What's really important for science to be of any use is logical and exhaustive experimenting. Any valid conclusion will admit it's shortcomings but they are likely to narrow down the possibilities, and that's all we can really ask for because there is no other way to find facts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
infallible, no. but yeah good system. people's careers and funding relies on publishing data. publishing data sorta hangs your career and funding in the hands of your peers. some people have gotten away with publishing bad data, but in the end, every published experiment must be reproducible, and when somebody tries to reproduce a bad experiment, they can show that the original conclusions were bogus. This is pretty much what my lab does. we look at genetic findings in the literature, then we reproduce the experiments using much larger sample groups. then we publish whether we confirmed the theory or disproved it. we do good work and get plenty of funding because of it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
DUBturbo, no. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
DUBturbo is proof of intelligent design |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
