Creationism and Intelligent Design are not Science

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I'm making this because some people seem to want to debate the pseudo-science of "Intelligent Design" as if it where Science, which it's not, and that it's equally as valid (if not better) than Evolution.

 

~

 

The following quoted portion is a throat-clearing of sorts, it is not part of what I want to make the actual discussion about.

 

Many of you want to know why this is something I care so much about matters of religion.

 

I'll make this bit for you.

 

 

Now, I don't think you can't be a good Christian, but the majority of people in this country and in the world; will look at you as akin to a child-molester, a terrorist, or a serial killer if you say you don't believe in any God, they only look at slightly better if you are of another Faith, because atleast your not a God-hating Atheist, your just a poor misguided fool.

 

So, who's being close-minded?

 

If you want to go on making the claim that Christians are being oppressed by Atheists, you are (to put it bluntly) an ignoramus.

 

~

 

Furthermore...

 

I'm open to being given a reason to change my mind, it doesn't mean your argument(s) is going to be valid within the realm of rationality, but that's why I made that other topic about the best method of considering the claims of religions vs. disbelief. In my "Atheism is the default position" topic I somewhat purposefully loaded my material and questions with religious rhetoric because I knew it would illicit a strong response (and I was concerned nobody would want to engage in the discussion). I also found it funny that all of you imediately go to "stop attacking my or other people's beliefs" and completely miss the point I was trying to make; hence this post.

 

I don't think it's a stretch either so say it's rather idiotic for this to be the general discussion.

 

- Oh yeah, if Evolution is true, where did atoms come from?

 

- Science doesn't know

 

- Oh yeah, well Genesis does!

 

- How do you know?

 

- YOU CAN'T PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

 

- You fucking serious?

 

- Quit being intolerant of my faith!

 

so on and so on and so on....

 

AND if you want to talk about how something cannot come from nothing, well, where did God come from?

 

...oh yeah, that's right, you don't have to prove God, you have faith, more of that delicious circular reasoning...

 

PROTIP: Science doesn't claim there was ever a "nothing", it's only a presumption made by our pattern seeking minds; if you knew anything about stuff like M-Theory, you might know what Science was investigating on that matter; but because there is no good answer, Science doesn't claim to have one.

 

Yet, we are to blind ourselves of this, and believe until proven wrong; or atleast that's the argument made by religious people towards someone like myself. (that would be intellectually, believing claims until they are proven wrong)

 

When I asking why do you believe in God, all I get (generally) is one or more of the following.

 

- #1 with a bullet, randomly selected ad hominem attack(s)

- You can't prove God doesn't exist

- I have faith and you can't change my mind

- Science is wrong because -> arguments made from fallacious reasoning or pseudo-science

 

So, yes, as a matter of both how the world generally treats non-believers, and my own personal experiences; I get slightly offended when I get accused of being intolerant. Yes, I am guilty of trolling people alittle bit on these matters, because I find stupid religious arguments to be quite funny, and any the ones that are made with a slight bit of intelligence to be a good opportunity to learn more.

 

But since Niji is entertaining the idea of possibly having a debate sub-forum, which will have to include informal discussions and hopefully, somewhat formalized debates; I am actually trying to have a serious discussion.

 

~

 

Now onto the actual topic.

 

If any of you want to discuss Creationism/Intelligent Design (faith) vs. Science (rational thinking), I will be apt to discuss/argue the subject with anyone, although I don't consider myself the ultimate authority on anything, I know enough that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not Scientific at all, and they are pretty much faith-based Scientific denial-ism(s) that prop-up their "Scientific Evidence" from fallacious reasoning and without empirical data.

 

But I will propose my "argument" against Creationism/Intelligent Design as follows.

 

I can easily show you why Creationism/Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in schools.

 

Here's my "argument"...

 

 

Unless you can show me a reason why Flying Spaghetti Monster Creation is wrong, well then, isn't it entitled to be taught? I mean if you want to teach the "controversy" that Evolution is the only valid scientific theory for the explanation of speciation (it does not explain the origin of life or the universe, it doesn't even try) that is supported by empirical Scientific thinking, and that Creation isn't proven wrong so it must be valid as a "theory", you must teach both; well then, what about the Pastafarian account?

 

Would you support the teaching of FSM ID if you think that Christian ID should be considered?

 

If no, why not.

 

I don't think anybody is going to say yes, and be making a serious post; but if you say yes, I would love to know why, and I don't know what I would ask. So hopefully you'll entertain me, as I'd like to reserve my questions for the "yes" position until after it is given.

 

~

 

EDIT

 

Since Rachis seems to think my point here is made crap by Pastafarianism being "silly", which is in and of itself a logical fallacy of "reductio ad absurdum", I can simply make another "less silly" parallel.

 

Sathya Sai Baba

 

^ Replace the Flying Spaghetti Monster with Sathya Sai Baba, and the claims of Pastafarianism with the beliefs of his followers.

 

My argument still stands, how would you reason out that the above is better than Biblical based Creationism?

Edited March 29, 2011 by DangerWorldWide

[Pendragon]

The REAL reason I believe in a God?

 

Because I don't know myself. Why else do you think I delve into the Bible every chance I can? I'm not sure who to believe, so I take any chance I can to answer all these questions you and many other atheists pose. I'm curious myself, and it irks me whenever I don't find an answer. So I keep searching.

 

Frankly though, I'm not exactly a fan of the idea that we're just here from chance. Science explains alot, but there are so many things on this planet that are just beyond human explanation. I doubt even a billion years of evolution would be enough to explain how we got here, like the migration of the salmon for instance, which utilizes the formation of vortices in rivers to gain momentum and swim upstream. Or perhaps how, despite a century of human engineering, we're still unable to recreate the efficiency of a bird in flight.

 

And to think we're just COPYING what we see from nature. I don't think any amount of time would be sufficient for nature to just make this stuff up on it's own, or to evolve it.

 

I dunno, just blindly believing that the universe just exploded into existence is as wild as believing God did it. How do we know science is absolute? This whole "observation" bullcrap is really misleading. You can't observe the beginning of the universe. Likewise, you can't observe evolution taking place, if it takes millions of years to happen. Blindly believing one thing is just as stupid as blindly believing something else.

 

And until scientists come up with a time machine to go back and witness the big bang occur, I'll be skeptical of it. Because right now scientists are as pig headed as many religious organizations, claiming how they're "right" and we're supposed to believe because they say so. Even fossil evidence, which I feel is very real, could be tampered with. Scientists are constantly arguing over how old they are, whether they're a billion years old or a million or even just a few hundred thousand years old. Carbon dating isn't a perfect science after all.

 

All in all, they want me to just blindly throw away my belief, just so they can hurl THEIR belief at me. And yes, I call it a BELIEF. They want me to believe that the Big Bang just happened without any visual evidence. Yes, they can observe atoms splitting and claim all they want, but that isn't a Big Bang.

 

Until they SHOW me a recreation of it happening, I'll be just as skeptical as I am of the thought of a God, which I question any time I read a bible.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I dunno, just blindly believing that the universe just exploded into existence is as wild as believing God did it.

 

I'm not trying to get off topic, but I feel compelled to respond.

 

First off, the Big Bang model has nothing to do with Evolution, and Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang model.

 

Science doesn't blindly believe anything, that would not be very scientific.

 

George Smoot and John C. Mather would probably be pretty insulted if you said that to them, both have a Ph.D. in physics, and they shared the prestige of winning the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2006. I wouldn't blame them for being insulted either, just because you don't know the theory in depth doesn't mean you can reduce it to a "belief" just because that's all you see it as, arguments from ignorance don't carry. Now, having a Ph.D. and a Nobel Prize don't mean you are correct (that would be appeal to authority), but I don't think it shouldn't infer a level of learning or be shrugged off along with the decades of work done by these men, and their predecessors and peers. When people say that a "Scientific Theory" is just a 'theory' that belies a very poor understanding of Science, and all things about the Scientific Method.

 

(a 1hr and 10minute lecture from Professor George Smoot, Ph.D. in Physics, Nobel Prize laureate, astrophysicist and cosmologist, on Big Bang theory)

 

by Philhellenes (a youtube favorite of mine, slightly easier to follow than the above)

 

by potholer54 (since LS likes potholer54, more good stuff for people who don't know anything about Big Bang)

by potholer54

 

~

 

I'll ask Niji not to delete your post Pen, even though I think what you said is a very ignorant statement and entirely off topic.

 

I'm not here to tell anyone they can't ask questions, but I will ask that you stay on topic of the question proposed in my original post; same goes for everyone else.

[Tsuranga]

The REAL reason I believe in a God?

 

Because I don't know myself. Why else do you think I delve into the Bible every chance I can? I'm not sure who to believe, so I take any chance I can to answer all these questions you and many other atheists pose. I'm curious myself, and it irks me whenever I don't find an answer. So I keep searching.

 

Frankly though, I'm not exactly a fan of the idea that we're just here from chance. Science explains alot, but there are so many things on this planet that are just beyond human explanation. I doubt even a billion years of evolution would be enough to explain how we got here, like the migration of the salmon for instance, which utilizes the formation of vortices in rivers to gain momentum and swim upstream. Or perhaps how, despite a century of human engineering, we're still unable to recreate the efficiency of a bird in flight.

 

And to think we're just COPYING what we see from nature. I don't think any amount of time would be sufficient for nature to just make this stuff up on it's own, or to evolve it.

 

I dunno, just blindly believing that the universe just exploded into existence is as wild as believing God did it. How do we know science is absolute? This whole "observation" bullcrap is really misleading. You can't observe the beginning of the universe. Likewise, you can't observe evolution taking place, if it takes millions of years to happen. Blindly believing one thing is just as stupid as blindly believing something else.

 

And until scientists come up with a time machine to go back and witness the big bang occur, I'll be skeptical of it. Because right now scientists are as pig headed as many religious organizations, claiming how they're "right" and we're supposed to believe because they say so. Even fossil evidence, which I feel is very real, could be tampered with. Scientists are constantly arguing over how old they are, whether they're a billion years old or a million or even just a few hundred thousand years old. Carbon dating isn't a perfect science after all.

 

All in all, they want me to just blindly throw away my belief, just so they can hurl THEIR belief at me. And yes, I call it a BELIEF. They want me to believe that the Big Bang just happened without any visual evidence. Yes, they can observe atoms splitting and claim all they want, but that isn't a Big Bang.

 

Until they SHOW me a recreation of it happening, I'll be just as skeptical as I am of the thought of a God, which I question any time I read a bible.

 

You do understand that all astrophysical evidence points to a great expansion of the universe right...

And visual evidence isn't everything. Saying that it doesn't exist because you can't see it is like saying air doesn't exist because you can't see it. but you're here breathing it. All evidence points to air existing, but you still can't see it. But obviously a mountain of empirical evidence means nothing compared to seeing something.

Learn to trust more than your eyes, they only see an infinitely small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum.

[Pendragon]

I'll ask Niji not to delete your post Pen, even though I think what you said is a very ignorant statement and entirely off topic.

 

Ah, I understand. Because I'm religious in general, all my arguments amount to nothing.

 

Pardon me if I want some physical evidence of the big bang, not just some numbers from some retards who have PHDs. you want physical evidence of a God? I want some physical evidence I can SEE. I don't want some fancy words and documents which can be easily tampered with and fluffed up because people who claim to be smart SAY it's right. For all we know, they could create some pseudo-scientific horse crap and claim it's genuine science, and who would question them? It's a monopoly and, if you ask me, to not question them in the slightest is dumber than just blindly accepting everything in the bible.

 

Oh, and that's pretty hilarious Raor. Deleting posts from people you don't like just so your side of the argument is the only one heard. TOTALLY unbiased.

 

While I'm at it Aegis: shut up. That argument is rife with irony and it hurts my head just thinking about it.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Pendragon

[Shirtless Crackhead]

It's actually because you went right off topic, and Niji deleted Tsu's and Tarstrudelvick's posts from before when they went right off topic.

 

~

 

If I thought your arguments amounted to nothing, I wouldn't have responded.

 

~

 

May I ask, what sort of physical evidence would you like of a quantum event that happened 14 billion years ago?

 

Here's a link to the UCLA - Division of Astrophysics and Astronomy.

 

~

 

I'm going to repeat myself and point out that this has nothing to do with the point that Creationism isn't a Science at all.

 

Creationism is not testable, based on observations or evidence, and it's not falsifiable; it's a religious belief parading as Science in order to have the political lobby of Christian fundamentalists bully it into the school system because they see Science as a threat to their religion.

 

Intelligent Design, is just Creationism where "God" (because Creationism is a faith-based pseudo-science created by Evangelical Christian fundamentalists) is replaced with "Intelligent Agency/Designer".

 

Evolution is a Theory (because it's a Theory, and is always going to be able to be changed if more/better information and understanding are had), but it's also a fact of observable biology. When microbes like the Flu or Tuberculosis become resistant to one from of antibiotics or another, that's Evolution happening; natural selection from environmental pressures. Microbes just evolve very fast when compared to more complex organisms; but the fossil record(s), phylogeny, genetics, taxonomy, and all forms of legitimate biological science all support Evolutionary Theory.

 

THE ONLY CHALLENGE, comes from people who want to deny Evolution because it crosses their literal interpretation of one form or another (there are many more Islamic and Hindu creationists, but nobody is going to let them teach it in American schools, are they?). Creationism has no evidence, they claim to have evidence, but they are making bad arguments from fallacious reasoning and misinformation.

 

To give you an example of this.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/a...4/carbon-dating <- Creationism

 

^That is also from the very core of the Creationist movement, Ken Ham is a huge player in the Creation movement.

 

 

 

When it comes to Creation, I (or anyone else for that matter) don't have to deny anything; there is no evidence for God or supernatural creation.

 

Edited March 31, 2011 by DangerWorldWide

[Pendragon]

You know, I don't remember claiming that intelligent design deserved to be taught in science class. It's a religious teaching and so should be kept separated from State.

 

Also, the "core" of creationist page and the "what's wrong with creationism" video are both covered in what they call "facts". The only reason to believe either is because they tell you to, using "information" they could've easily made up. Now, I know what you're thinking. "IT'S CARBON DATING, IT'S A PROVEN PROCESS THEY CAN'T MAKE IT UP." Well, how do YOU know that? They created the process, and they could easily alter anything about it. Heck, when it comes to evolution, they could falsify fossil evidence and do something like claiming that elephants evolved from space aliens who had laser trunks. Who would question them? Sure, "other" scientists could, but they would retract their opposition quickly if money was to be gained. See, these constants of evolution are all based on the assumption that every single scientist on Earth is a moral person who wants to do nothing but further human knowledge about the universe around us, which obviously can be proven wrong when you look at the scandals that have taken place. Again, like I said, when they make time machines, I'll be more inclined to believe everything claimed by modern day scientists. It's already technically possible thanks to the Large Hadron Collider, so it isn't too unlikely.

 

I guess it'll make me sound stupid now, which will likely cause all my future arguments to be ignored. But hey, I'll start taking science more seriously when there aren't thousands of "professionals" who falsify their studies for a quick buck or for publicity. Pharmaceutical corporations, for example, and the "scientists" they employ to pump out cheap medicine which is untested. For every clergyman who rapes a small child, there's another placebo put on the market that rapes your wallet and does nothing. I guess you'll call that argument a strawman fallacy if you want, because I know SOMEONE will, but it;'s honestly what I think of the modern world.

 

In the end, I probably don't have much to counter these "facts" proposed by modern day scientific tinkerers, and I'm not gonna just say it's all false because ZOMG JESUS DONE TOLD ME TO, but I have a hard time just taking everything at face value unless I can see it physically and in Layman's terms.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Pendragon

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I can only try my best.

 

[Pendragon]

I still don't know. You can claim we have genes for tails, but who says they're specifically for tails? Or, chickens having the genes to make teeth for example. Why would they evolve to use beaks, when teeth are still a viable option? Also, that video seemed a bit biased, taking expertly drawn pictures for evolutionary arguments, while he just slapped together some MS paint doodles whenever presenting a creationist argument. Felt a bit tacky.

 

Plus, I happen to remember debacles surrounding how fossils have often been misrepresented in how old they are. I mean, how does one tell that a T-rex fossil is 65 million years old? Why not 65 thousand years old? Sure, observing matter decay and fossilize is a way to tell how things age in small time, but it's hard to really believe that it would be accurate for a process that occurs over billions of years.

 

Much like how you want evidence from Christians because you think they're lacking, I still don't buy alot of what scientists say today. I'm waiting for the time machine to be made. That's the ONLY thing that will convince me whether or not religion is a hoax.

 

Regardless, I won't just dismiss the video, as it did make some nice points. I just need more time to look into it before I start throwing decisions around.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Pendragon

[Tsuranga]

Pen... you're not getting it... You seem to have a very lose grasp about just how strict and regulated the scientific community is. We're CONSTANTLY arguing against each other and trying to prove each other wrong or right, that's how science WORKS. For ever bit of fact you attempt to dismiss it with baseless conjecture, paranoia, conspiracy theories, and ignorance. You say that all this "fact" could be faked... well then by that logic the bible can also be faked. You're choosing to call the scientists "retards with PhD's" yet choosing to believe a bunch of religious fanatics just because you seem to like their answers better. And next time you call someone with a PhD a retard, why don't you go and get yourself a PhD too and tell us just how retardedly easy it is to get.

 

Oh, and btw you said you're waiting for a time machine as evidence...

 

|TIME MACHINES ARE IMPOSSIBLE|

 

It is only possible to speed or slow time relative from one mass to another based on their velocities. Simply "Jumping" through time is impossible.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Tsuranga

[Shirtless Crackhead]

This post is for Exogen, who's into Ontology and Epistemological spiritualism.

 

He brought up he likes Daniel Dennett, who's one of my four horsemen of Atheism.

 

A very prominent and deeply inspiring philosopher.

 

Daniel Dennett on Consciousness and Free-will

Edited April 1, 2011 by DangerWorldWide

[Harakiri Tiger]

You could also look at natural processes in the world and extrapolate from there, instead of using a time machine. That's how this weird science came to be, you know? That's actually what the scientific method represents.

 

To prove to you that the information behind the Big Bang isn't just made up you would have to do the near unthinkable. You would have to actually delve into the field of astrophysics and begin observing and experimenting with the world around you. You don't have to buy what they, including Raor, say about the universe. It's very possible to figure it all out yourself, or at least a large portion of it. Some people choose to do just that. That is why Hawking's Big Bang is not the only idea floating around on our little blue ball about how it all began. It's also why many of those people have white hair on their head, they're pretty old since it takes a while to do it all yourself and not go completely off of other people's work. It takes time when you start from the base, but you can be sure that whatever answers you do find will not have been based off other peoples lies and schemes.

 

You're willing to dive into the Bible to learn about God, so why not dive into the world to learn about world? You're correct in questioning why you should accept some other man's word as any more correct than God's word. They both ask that you take their word for truth. They both will bear the burden of fallacies, malicious intent, and misinformation. The only way to know for sure is to use your own mind and power to discover the truth, not the word of others.

 

Pen, are you sure you're not just taking someone on their word already? Are you sure you're using your mind to truly discover how the world works or is someone or something telling you how the world works? Are you sure you're not forfeiting your abilities to another's beliefs?

 

You're free to choose as you wish, of course. You can take someone on their word or you can work to find the truth on your own. It's a choice we never stop making, really.

 

-----

 

Anyway, to be on-topic a bit... Creationism has nothing to do with science and is not a science in any way, shape, or form. It is built on the very, very fundamental basis that someone else is right because he (God) told you so. You must take someone elses word for it. End of story. Science is the study of the universes phenomenon that are currently observable by our species and then the extrapolation of that information onto history and the future. Science is not meant to be taken on someone's word, though many people choose to take other people's word and call themselves scientists. This is a human fault. Lazyness and Mortality. Some of us just do not have the time left to discover the world for ourselves. Others are unwilling to discover the world for themselves, so they choose to let others tell them how it works. That is not science. It was never part of science. It will never be part of science.

 

Believing what a scientist tells you does not make you a scientist. Believing what any being tells you does not make you a scientist. Finding out for yourself does.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

Hawking's Big Bang? Steven Hawking? He didn't come up with the Big Bang, though. In fact, he kinda didn't come up with anything. He just has a big mouth and is an interesting tale. Most physicists don'

 

Some priest came up with the Big Bang, and a lot of the proof behind it working comes from Einstein's work. Don't uh take my word on it though, it's been a long time since I've had to use any of that kind of knowledge so it's potentially spotty or wrong.

 

And you can't time travel, sorry.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Penguin Deus

[Harakiri Tiger]

He just has a big mouth...

 

That's why I call it Hawking's Big Bang. He's the big mouth that pushed the popular version of it out. There are multiple hypothesis on the big bang, though, so I didn't want to generalize them all and who originally thought it up isn't important to my previous post.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

But that's kind of my point, though. I've never heard anyone else call it that. And I mean...my major was aerospace, so astrophysics was pretty heavily emphasized in the curriculum. Also, I don't remember him popularizing the term but I won't argue that part too hard since I have no proof on it. The only thing I remember him being big on was black holes.

 

Essentially I'm saying calling it "Hawking's Big Bang" is wrong. "Big Bang" is the most accurate term.

 

EDIT: Also, you can generalize it because the general idea behind Big Bang is kind of similar always. There was a boom, stuff went out, tada! Universe get! We're not gonna go into the details of any hypothesis afterall, it doesn't matter for this convo yet.

 

SUPER EDIT: To stay on topic, Creationism isn't a science. You'd need to prove there is a Prime Mover of some kind before the rest of it can be true. As it stands it's Homer logic, at best.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Penguin Deus

[Ataraxis]

The term 'Big Bang' was coined by one of McPriestly's main opposition men during a radio broadcast and it sort of took off from there. To be fair, the other guys name for it was stupid. Neener neener.

 

Also, what PD said about the Prime Mover. It's right. Zoop.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Ataraxis

[Harakiri Tiger]

He's the big mouth that pushed the popular version of it out.

 

When most people that I've met talk of the big bang they typically talk about the specific version that he was a part of popularizing, though. He was one of the very major faces of it for the general populace during the past 15 years or so, regardless of if he had much to do with it. Specifically that there is no "before" the big bang. No big crunch chain, no chaotic expansion, no membrane theory, etc. These are all potential parts of the big bang theory, but they're not exactly popularized. The word "before" wasn't really taught in science books until very recently when it came to the big bang. It probably still isn't in most places.

 

July didn't invent, showcase, or refine mutalisk micro in BW really. Although he did provide a very helpful component of current mutalisk micro he mostly just popularized it. Not the word, either. Just the action. It was done by association, more than anything. Same with Hawking. I rarely meet people who talk about membrane theory and such, they tend to just know a bit about what the big bang is supposed to be and that tends to be old information coinciding with Hawkings popularity. That's why I call it Hawking's Big Bang in that post.

 

If I were to take Hawking's out of that sentence it would sound very funny to me. Big Bang really is just about the only idea that's floating around our little blue ball with any significance in a scientific sense, as far as I know. The version most people know of, though, is the version most easily associated with Hawkings rise to popularity.

 

That's about all the clearing up I can do for using that adjective anyway. This entire discussion about my usage of his name is pretty far off-topic so I'll leave it that.

 

I want to have time traveling powers.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

That post still misses my point. I don't even know anyone who associates Big Bang and Hawking. I'm not just talking about randos I meet at a Starbucks or anything, either. I'm talking about the professors at the University I went to, and any journal I ever had to read on the subject.

 

He was one of the major faces of Physics, and Black Holes, sure. Not the Big Bang. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Keanu got me so it's all good.

[Tsuranga]

ya... a singular "big bang" really isn't the only scientific theory.

Now I'm gunna put my head on the guillotine here by saying the version that I most believe, or associate, with being the one of a circular universe. Universe is singlularity ->expands -> falls into black holes -> forms a massive black hole -> forms another singularity and repeats. Futurama actually had a nice reference to this theory. Now, it may or may not be right, I don't really care until more evidence appears, but I like it and it's just a good example of possible origins of the universe.

Moral of the story: "big bang" isn't the only scientific explanation of the origins of the universe, people just need to be more open minded to what science reveals and not have their heads so far up a religions ass that they can't hear rational thought.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

The Big Bang model still remains a valid theory, it's also the most accepted theory for formation of the universe as is.

 

It doesn't settle where the universe comes from, it hasn't even been established what is going to happen to end the current model.

 

We don't know if the universe is going to keep expanding and go eventually into entropic heat-death (the accepted model, and the least likable), or if it's going to somehow stabalize (I'm not aware of a good theory that supports this), or that gravitation will somehow overcome the acceleration and we'll have a "Big Crunch" and as it where, recycle the universe (a valid theory, but not as well supported by the evidence).

 

No Cosmological theories are as valid as Evolution, Evolution is actually probably the most substantiated scientific theory we have. But Creationists denies all this and assumes that Scientists are just telling a story, and that their story is better because "God wrote it".

 

The reason Creationists get fossils carbon-dated to "thousands of years" is because there is no natural carbon left in it; an honest scientist knows this, and doesn't send things that won't give accurate results. When you send samples to a lab, they test it blind, they don't know what it is, or how old you think it is; they just run it through the process of carbon dating and send you the results.

 

When people say that Creationists are making up crap, it's not even a stretch of the imagination.

 

Creationism also proposes the Earth and the Universe are roughly 6000 years old, Intelligent Design is just Creationism with "God" replaced in the wording by "Intelligent Agency". It's not a valid form of scientific investigation, it's pseudo-science that bolsters support through the religious conviction of Christians in this country, as some sort of Religion vs. Evolution controversy; when there is no controversy.

 

An insanely long but informative video-series, "

" - by AronRa

 

^I highly recommend watching all of it, btw.^

 

Short video, unrelated to science itself, but a bit of humor on the "sensitivity" factor.

 

EDIT: I biff'd on my link to Daniel Dennett.

 

Here it is again -

Edited April 1, 2011 by DangerWorldWide

[exogen]

Simply put, and this is a demonstrable fact, Creationism AND intelligent Design are not scientific theories. for them to qualify as a scientific theory they need to make empirical predictions that can then be tested via observation within the context of experiment, done validly, that can be repeated and falsified. Creationism/ID does neither.

 

Creationism can always rework the Data to suite the coherence of the theory to avoid contradiction. an example would be if one shows some bit of evidence that supports an evolutionary view in biology which is then reinterpreted by the creationist by saying "god just made it that way". the creationist can always say that god made it this way or that. in other words creationism is unfalsifiable because it does not specify any empirical data that is predicted to be observed under experimental conditions or in the field.

 

ID is a bit better then creationism insofar as the notion advanced by Micheal Behe of "irreducible complexity" which is the notion that in order for a life system to evolve it must have design pathways that would allow the transition from one micro-state to the next. in other words Irreducible complexity is the idea that life cannot have evolved because if you take out one part of a given biological artifact then the function no longer works much in the same way a mouse trap will no longer work if you take out the spring to catch mice.

 

this notion however has of IC has been refuted on two counts.

 

1. design pathways (the trajectory of evolutionary changes made by an organism (note the phenotypical and genotypical evolution) through time in a population can be shown to exist via a whole host of evidence be it genetic, archeological, computer models or simply to demonstrate the principle is wrong by experiment, all of which have been done numerous times if one simply looks.

 

2. The notion of ID it self is based on a falcy that the function of a design, while it might be hindered by removing parts, it does not change the fact that a diferent function can emerge as a result. this was pointed out even in a cort case on evolution and ID in the schools where one famous biologist showed how although you could remove a mouse trap's spring and therefore it's function no longer was served to atch mice, it still none the less, could make a creat tie clip.

 

One redeeming quality of ID however is that the the idea of ID in point 1, of design pathways needing to be illustrated to show that an organism has evolved through a successive set of changes is a create way to falsify evolution, which only supports the theory even more. so ironically ID only helps the case for evolution in it's effort to knock it down.

[Harakiri Tiger]

As a general warning to everyone, and I mean everyone.

Stay on topic with the original post or you'll receive a 3-day ban and a raised warning level.

 

Normally I allow somewhat off-topic chatter as long as it's somehow a tangent of the original post, but my patience is rapidly wearing thin this week with having to delete so many posts. Keep the bickering to General Chat. At least until I am far less aggravated. It's the best way to insure your ACU survival.