Wrong, my young whipper snapper(really young if you haven't seen that bullshit, as I'm one myself), that is exactly what they taught in school. They even had a nice chart exemplifying it, with monkeys and shit turning into australopithecus and whatnot, eventually becoming us. They aren't still teaching that shit in college thankfully, but what they are teaching isn't much better. They use the same stuff the people in here are using as evidence of current evolution.



No, it was assumed to be observed. And don't pull that asinine definition of evolution. It's an ass covering attempt to avoid how big an ass genetics have made the evolutionary biologists look. The theory of evolution is MACRO-evolution, not a temporary shift in phenotypes caused by near extinction of a dominant trait. The "proof" is equally useful in disproving the theory, a versatile species with a wide range of genetic traits doesn't evolve new ones, but loses some of them.

When a species loses 90% of it's population before breeding age, it's going to vary in make-up when the circumstances change, regardless of whether evolution exists in any form at all. If a moth population is only 10% black moths and 90% white moths, but 99% of the wrong color moth population gets eaten and only 90% of the right color moths do, the trees being coated in black soot just changed the black moths from 1% of the population to more than half in one generation. Evolution is still getting laughed at by so many people because evolutionists are just as narrow-minded as the idiots that think the earth is six thousand years old are.

The fossil record is the best evidence of evolution that I've seen, and the entire combined fossil collection of the entire world is as much a history of life on earth as my ass crack is of the US. It's a negligible portion even of the fossils that likely exist, and fossilization is a ridiculously rare circumstance. Short of turning one species into another, we're fucked.

weee and here we go into the tired "omg it doesn't evolve the new species" argument

South Park explains Evolution

You must not know that the theory of evolution is as much as fact as the theory of gravitation. Like I said, it doesn't matter what you believe the truth to be. The fact of the matter is that evolution produces tangible, predicatble, testable, and demonstrable results while ID doesn't.



I'm sure when God flooded the world, all the babies and children were evil. What an ass of a god. If I were a theist, the god of the Bible wouldn't be mine. He's petty, jealous, megalomaniac, sadistic, deceiving, short-tempered, weak, and flawed. He's about as good as the worst human ever imaginable... and we're supposed to worship that? Wow... that'll be day.



I stopped taking you seriously after that sentence. If you had any brains instead of shit in your head, you'd know that genetics has done nothing but corroborate what evolution had predicted. Including finding the missing chromosome that all the great apes but humans have.

Also, for all you morons who follow this dumbass' line of thinking, micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same damn thing. The only different is time. It's like saying that a word is micro-talking and a full sentence or idea is macro-talking. And these are the people who think that ID is science.

How low has the American education system fallen. No wonder pharmaceutical and bioengineering companies are hiring outside the US more and more. With education like this idiot exemplifies, the US must be reverting to the damn dark ages.

They probably weren't, and might well have gone to Heaven. There is a long series of books by Lahaye and Jenkins named the "Left Behind" series, in which the Rapture occurs (quite literally - but at the very least as a sort of allegory), and all the kids and babies take part in it and go to Heaven. I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened here (no one does), but it's certainly a possibility.

The person I was quoting said that people bring death upon themselves through their evil doings. How did babies and children bring death upon themselves? What excuse will people make up for God having murdered everyone indiscriminately?

Thank goodness it's all myth. Otherwise, it would've been a real tragedy had the flood really occurred.

I disagree with you, but I don't really want to argue - I've found that I don't enjoy argument on forum
I do, however, understand your point. But what would be more important? A physical death, or life in Heaven? Like I said, I don't know what happens to little kids, but the question could also be answered by predestination, though I think it should come to the same thing. It's a good question, though, but I don't think it necessarily points to a jerk of a God.

if you listen to the most popular christian religions while, perhaps, not all of the kids went to hell... if anyone was born without a preist nearby to baptize them and "cleanse them of their original sin" which was, of course, passed on to them because apparently reproduction is a sin, then they went straight to hell. Have fun attempting to explain your way out of that one.

Most of the major religions are poorly thought-out philosophical viewpoints that have no evidence supporting them other than the fact that they're "old" and "well... a lot of people believe it, so it must be true!". A lot of people think the US actually invaded iraq to get rid of saddam hussein's regime too... or that there was a cover up about the WMDs and they actually found WMDs but weren't allowed to announce it...

Those are just current examples of mass stupidity. You can find a LOT more than that without traveling back in history more than 100 years... to hell with "Well a lot of people thought the world was flat in the 1400s!!!" How about a lot of people thought hitler was an honest man, and a great leader for his people prior to invading countries people actually cared about? How about the ENTIRE BRANCH of the catholic church in germany that not only supported hitlers war effort but ordained it as a holy war? With no retractions or excommunications forthcoming from the pope I might add. Of course, a lot of people thought germany had a good chance of winning. Which they did. So you don't want your religion to be backing the wrong side... so with no comment from rome if germany had won the pope just could have went "All glory to the true sons of god! We always knew you were destined to win." This is the same bunch of self-serving retards that have arbitrarily edited your "holy book" at least 3 times that we know of plus a few more times that can't be fully confirmed, and have whole entire BOOKS that were orignally supposed to be included in the bible stashed away beneath the vatican?

Sorry, but organized religion should not have any credibility left whatsoever. The polygamists on that ranch in texas have just as much of a clue about gods true nature as any of you "believers" do. Which is to say, none at all. Some kind of being may exist, we can't test it, so we can't prove or disprove it 100%. We also can't have a book written by some jackass on a shroom trip taken as "The word of the allmighty!".

If jesus tried to come back and pull the wool like he did 2000 years ago, he'd be shot. Most likely by proponents of the religion that claims to worship him.

Edit: I'll take a case of the good Heineken, not the crap they export. Thx multi

damn

Hey there... actually I am growing tired of all this pro ID stuff. Here I offer a compromise: There is antibiotics. Take penicillin. Due to the fact ( you know the BAD word) of random mutation those nasty little bacteria buggers have evolved (thnks to the fact that they multiple like every few hours and not every few decades like we do) to a state where they actually are immune to that ol' penicillin, we would die of the simplest of infections wouldn't it be for research of ever new antibiotics. BUT: Since there is no evolution, all pro IDs should just take penicillin and pray perhaps (cause i want the good stuff cause of them evolving bastards.) I think that should do it....

But nasty old sarcasm aside.... I really don't want to believe in a god who, despite trying to kill me with Sulphur raining from the skies (does he live on Venus?) is designing ever new deadly bacteria and virae to kill me. (Must be a heck of a job to fill the heavens..) I'd rather BELIEVE in them little buggers wanting to survive and therefore evolving, just like every other living thing out there.

'nough said.

Please, its not nice to point out to Christians that their so called "god" is a psychotic egomaniac. At least until he dared birth a son out of wedlock -- adulterously, no less! -- so that his son could redeem him by focusing more on mercy. Oh, but only mercy for Christians -- everyone else out there is still evil, but we'll forgive them when they convert.



Heck, have fun trying to explain away the basic psychology of people tending to follow their birth religion, too. So anyone who is birthed to a religion other than Christianity is highly likely to go to hell from the Christian point of view. After all, they don't worship Christ, do they? And, of course, that ignores -- as you point out -- the millions and billions who have been born, lived, and then died without having ever heard of Christianity.

Sorry, I'm going to pass on that religion.

Cool the insults and disparaging remarks guys, or this thread will be locked and offenders will find themselves taking a break from the forums.

Intelligent design is neither science nor is it intelligent. There is no credible scientific support for this drivel. This is merely obsfucation and is consistent with the current most popular method of trying to "disprove" something that is objectionable to your personal bias.

The idea is that you don't have to actually prove anything or even argue anything intelligently. All you need to do is to have enough people spout the most inane beliefs without any substantive evidence and then point to the "fact" that there is discussion and "controversy" over the issue. There is no need for any kind of proof, all that is necessary is to cast the minutest bit of doubt for those that wish to delude themselves to cling to.

This is the same tactic made popular by the cigarette companies. See the movie "Thank you for not smoking" for a prime example.

As far as insults and disparaging remarks the only purpose of a topic such as this is to encourage such behavior. I think that this crap should be locked and deleted the instant it shows up. This stuff simply doesn't belong here regardless of being in the Off Topic forum.

I find this entire thread objectionable.

It's a bit of a prickly issue actually since this is not the actual GC2 off topic forum, but a new one shared with Sins and possibly other sites. So I'm presently trying to figure out exactly where it is mirrored at to know what sort of policy to enforce (this sort of thing is generally frowned on on the game sites, but others are looser in what's tolerated). If it were only on GC2, I'd have locked it days ago and pointed at the stickied notice about taking such threads to JoeUser.

Please do enlighten me as to where you think my understanding is lacking. It may just be a case of my efforts to be succinct distorting what I actually understand, or I may have a misconception.

I want to apologise if i offendend someone. It was meant as a purely sarcastic remark.

I have read the first two pages of this and I see alot of posts equating science with logic. They are not necessarily the same thing. Science requires experimentation and observation to get results, read: the Scientific Method.

Logic can easily be false. Here is a decent example of fals logic.

A. If every Tuesday it rains and B. My weekly prescription comes every Tuesday, then C. Every time it rains my weekly prescription arrives.

Obviously it can rain other days and my precription won't come.

This discussion reminds me of a South Park episode, where Cartmen froze himself to get a Wii. Ms. Garrison was required to teach evolution to the class but didn't agree with it. I belive the line went: "So there, you're all the offspring of a monkey bangin' a retarded fish frog."

Actually, you have a flawed argument. Your conclusion wrongly assumes "every Tuesday it rains" implies "it only rains on Tuesday". I can't remember the exact terminology for the flaw in your argument, I think it is either "invalid" or "not cogent", as it has been probably 3-4 years since I was taking that course. The problem is not with logic, it is your proof that is flawed. "It rains every time my weekly prescription arrives" would have been the correct conclusion, assuming that when it rains on Tuesday, it rains all Tuesday long.

I see the Intelligent Design thing as a missed opportunity.

It should be a way to resolve differences. Unfortunately the "theory" has been hijacked and for all practical purposes it has become nothing more than another name for creationism.

I have come to believe that our existence consists of the intellectual, the physical, and the spiritual. The intellectual and physical are the indigenous yin yang dualism that make us sentient beings.

To become a more complete person the spiritual part of life may be cultivated in many ways and does not require adoption of any dogma. It is simply the willingness to ponder the mystery of our existence. Where that pondering takes us is a function of intellect.

"It rains every time my weekly prescription arrives" would have been the correct conclusion, assuming that when it rains on Tuesday, it rains all Tuesday long.

Yeah I know it's a bad example, I had philosophy in college back in 2002. But my point still stands. All logic isn't sound logic and just because Sciene does use logic does not mean that Logic = Science.

Something I am slightly confused about. Are supporters of ID campaigning to get this taught in Science classes or just in school?

As long as no one tries to cram it down my throat I could care less but Science should stay in science class and it seems that ID isn't based on science so... teach it in philosophy class.

I apologize if ID has some basis in science, I haven't read or heard about it if it has.

"Unsound"? Maybe that was the name of the flaw?

It has always been my opinion that if it is not a sound argument, it is not really logic. It might be an attempt, and formal definitions may include it as "bad" logic, but to me that like saying a cold-blooded dog with flippers, scales, gills, and lacking fur, lungs, and the ability to bark is a "bad" example of a dog.

As a side note: I wasn't the only one in college level logic wondering why we didn't learn that stuff in elementary school, was I?

The supporters "we" are worried about are the ones that want it taught along side evolution (i.e. in science class), and given equal credibility. As far as teaching it in philosophy class, I know of no grade school that has such curriculum.

The thing is, to my mind at least, ID implies purpouse. This is derived from the word design, when you design something you design it for a purpouse, for example the car was designed for fast, easy, personal transport and the watch was designed to tell the time. So here is the first problem with ID, in that humankind has no greater purpouse. We are not here to fufil some great destiny, we're born, we live, we die, just like everything else. If ID is true then all life has been designed and has a purpouse, so if you are going to argue for it you need to be able to pin a purpouse on every living thing. This includes mayflies, wasps, penguins, bacteria and everything else that lives or has lived.

This is before we even get to the fact that there is evidence for evolution, it is, to an extent, a provable hypothesis. This means it is scientific. ID hon the other hand is not provable, at least as I understand it. ID entails that an intelligent force guided the progess of life to its current point. This encompasses both evolution and creationism, so it is neither, however the fact that is is an unprovable hypothesis means it belongs in the philosophy department, not the science department.

Then again, the idea of a marriage between ID and evolution seems odd to me. This is because at its most basic evolution happens because of random mutations. These mutations, if beneficial, are naturally selected and become predominant in the gene pool over the generations as the organism with these mutations is better able to survive than those of a similar organism without. But the point is that it is random mutation, not intelligent mutation. Take humans as a prime example, there are many things about us that are not optimised, as they would be had we been intelligently designed. An example is the vulnerability of the kidneys. If you were to design humans from scratch, to be similar at least to they are now, there would be numerous optimisations and tweaks that would be intelligent.

The conclusion I have to draw is that as life lacks a specific purpouse and is not perfectly optimised, only well adapted, to its particular environments ID is not a vaild theory.