Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

Anyways, I've made the points I feel are important to bring up, and encourage atheists and Christians alike to read Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation by Dennis R. Petersen.

Urist McCloaked Cancels Friendly Debate in Thread: Interrupted by Dwarf Fortress

I can already tell how the book will lean based on your capitalization principles.  (yeah, I know that's petty...)  What if said Atheist doesn't believe that there was a creation?  Reading a book on the theory that everything was created seems counterproductive.

Then they can just read the parts regarding evolution. And my capitalization principles are to capitalize proper nouns and words at the start of a sentence.

[Phmcw]

Damnit Darth, it's a bad argument. You realy don't know how this kind of datation work do you? Ok A quick course for you. As you know nucleide have a different lifspan if they have different amount of neutron in them. Ok but carbon 14 have a short lifespan so initial carbon 14 is long gone. However, cosmic ray inpacting the atmosphere create carbon 14 who then decay and the system stay at an equilibrium. When an organism is living, he get carbon from the athmosphere. when he die, he stop refreshing his carbon supply and the ratio carbon 16/carbon 14 lower.

[Siquo]

Darths capitalisation is linguistically correct. His "arguments" are plain weird.

Theism has no place in Science, and vice versa.

[Andir]

Darths capitalisation is linguistically correct. His "arguments" are plain weird.

I'm catching that... seems to be basing his argument off of one book as well.  I think we already discussed the fallacy in that a while back with a certain other book that people base their beliefs ... erm... faith in.

[Siquo]

Nah, there's nothing wrong with that, base your beliefs on anything you want. Science is just a Big Book as well.
But attacking evidence like that is not going to get him anywhere. Thing is, most facts the evolution theory was based upon are pretty much settled, by now. Attacking the theory using your own anecdotal evidence, complete ignorance, or examples of a few fraudulent scientists who wanted quick and easy fame doesn't debunk an entire theory.

The theory of (macro!)evolution is correct, and presumably true, given the facts that we have (micro-evolution is indisputably true and reproducible). That God is just messing with the scientists by making it appear to be true is a whole different story

[chaoticag]

If Intelligent design is a scientific theory, how come it is never published in a peer reviewed article? How come there aren't any experiments to see if it's true? With evolution at least, we can test the hypothesis? Can you devise an experiment that tests the ID hypothesis? Thought experiments don't count, it has to be scientific lab work, like this one: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

The E. Coli ongoing evolution experiment, that has been going on for 20 years, and has already showed signs of evolution, including an E. Coli strain that can live off nitric acid.

And this: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/5308/1934

Which observes the rate of evolution, and even measures it. Can you measure Intelligent Design?

Plus this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Which is a record of observed instances when a new species has emerged, supporting evolution.

In fact, there hasn't been a proper scientific paper challenging evolution in a hundred years. There is no controversy, and if you do prove an intelligent designer, then you are eligible for a Nobel Prize. Arguments are not proof, we need evidence, and we need tests, and the tests so far, are in favor of evolution.

And two more videos for the heck of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Ken Miller, a Christian against Intelligent Design (Just watch the first hour, second is just Q&A)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
AaronRa, showing the flaws with creationism and intelligent design. (part of a series)

[Andir]

In fact, there hasn't been a proper scientific paper challenging evolution in a hundred years. There is no controversy, and if you do prove an intelligent designer, then you are eligible for a Nobel Prize.

Heck, you can get one of those by being charismatic and by just making promises anymore...

Sorry, wrong thread for this rant.

[MrWiggles]

Aaron is great. Did anyone else catch him guess starring on the Atheist Experience and the Non-profits?

[Siquo]

How come there aren't any experiments to see if it's true? With evolution at least, we can test the hypothesis?

Yes, we could. But we haven't yet. ID challenges macro-evolution, not micro-evolution. I think ID is total BS, but we haven't seen any species turn into a different one, yet, let alone reproduce it in the lab. So they're right about that.

The e.coli experiment is great, but they're still e.coli... Not a new species. Please, attack ID for all that it's worth (nothing), but on the right grounds.


That AronRa video is Very Good. He also does not fall into the trap of evolution = atheism, and religion = creationism. They are two very different scales. Very good speech.

[Huesoo]

For everyone going "its just a theery, hurr durr" please educate yourself on the term of the normal definition of theory and a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. This website may help.

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

[Neruz]

I'm actually agreeing with Siquo here...

...

Ok, the Universe is still intact, let's continue. DarthCloakedDwarf's arguments are, uh, strange? Nonsensical? I'm not sure where to start.

[Siquo]

Ok, the Universe is still intact, let's continue.

A Miracle! Proof that there is a God! Hallelujah! 

[Neruz]

For those interested in Evolution, the Nylon-eating Bacteria and E-Coli Long Term Experiment articles are quite interesting to read, especially if you follow the cited sources.

[CJ1145]

If Intelligent design is a scientific theory, how come it is never published in a peer reviewed article? How come there aren't any experiments to see if it's true? With evolution at least, we can test the hypothesis? Can you devise an experiment that tests the ID hypothesis? Thought experiments don't count, it has to be scientific lab work, like this one: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

Why hasn't it been published in a peer-reviewed article? Because people won't let it be published! Tell you what, go get yourself a scientific career. Then try to publish a paper that even mentions ID. See how long you last.

[Neruz]

If Intelligent design is a scientific theory, how come it is never published in a peer reviewed article? How come there aren't any experiments to see if it's true? With evolution at least, we can test the hypothesis? Can you devise an experiment that tests the ID hypothesis? Thought experiments don't count, it has to be scientific lab work, like this one: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

Why hasn't it been published in a peer-reviewed article? Because people won't let it be published! Tell you what, go get yourself a scientific career. Then try to publish a paper that even mentions ID. See how long you last.

There is a reason for that you know.