But some things allow us to survive and reproduce with better success. Like vaccinations and internal combustion.
Evolution v Intelligent Design; Should we really teach evolution?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
But some things allow us to survive and reproduce with better success. Like vaccinations and internal combustion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_theory
The edit doesn't add to your argument though, it's just an interesting fact
All. Not most. I simply said "most" since I usually say "most" instead of "all" when talking about different things.
How is it contrary?
The begining of the universe doesn't help us. It's about knowing though.
Again, it's about the pursuit of knowledge.
I didn't know it was called that, thanks.
Of course that can be disproved, why wouldn't it be?
Ownt. Didn't think about it like that.
My point was, it doesn't rely on evidence. It doesn't have evidence beyond mathematics in being theoretical physics.
Do you consider the string theory in the same league as pink unicorns? I don't. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand: ID is mathematically a very real possibility. It's not an absurd idea.
It worked for Tom Cruise.
Where's the math to be worked out in ID? There isn't any, there's the difference.
lol
Possibilities. All things which occur are either caused or occur naturally. Therefore, it remains a real possibility that Humanity was "caused", or in other words, a mathematical possibility we were created. It isn't an absurd notion.
Again, do you consider string theory in the same league as pink unicorns?
A REAL possibility? I don't understand how Humanity COULD have been caused, maybe that's where I am going wrong. Shouldn't there be some evidence left over from the DNA(and whatever) altering? There isn't any, while there is for evolution. What should have been payed more attention was someone's question to you asking whether you know what Occam's Razor is. Clearly, you do not.
Course not, pink unicorns' existence doesn't make sense to me, M-Theory does.
What evidence? I mean, you don't know what evidence you're looking for in order to find it. It's like if I put you in a room filled with junk, and simply said "find it", without ever telling you what "it" is. You can't find it becuase you don't know what you're looking for.
As a real possibility, it is just that, a real possibility. What is so hard to understand that Humans could have been created or guided in their development? It's not that crazy of an idea. It also doesn't exclude evolution in this view; in fact, such higher forms of life could've specifically implemented some sort of eugenics to advance our species.
I'm glad you understand that not all concepts are the same.
Uh oh, I might have just wasted a lot of your time. I completely agree that it's possible it could've happened that way, it's just outrageous to think it did. There's a mathematical chance this laptop could fall through the table I'm sitting at, but it won't.
A low mathematical chance. ID isn't absurd, or outrageous. Frankly, we were either created or we came to be naturally. The scale tips in favor of evolution, sure, but not so much that ID becomes such a drastically low and ridiculous idea.
Also, yes it's outrageous to BELIEVE it did, but the supposition itself isn't outrageous. It should be left an open possibility, because it's a very real one.
Edit: Betrayer, see 1:14-1:30 of the video.
Last edited:
First, to the edit, Richard Dawkins was lied to before that interview.
Fine, it should be left an open possibility, only if it somehow works with evolution. Evolution is undeniable, a little googling will show that. Speciation has been observed, things have "transformed" into things more complex. It's much much much more likely that evolution is true, so back to the original question, of course evolution should be taught in schools instead of ID.
I'm leaving this topic though, another time probably. It's been nice talking to you Norsefire.
What?
It doesn't necessarily matter if it works or it doesn't work with evolution, because the question is about the origin life complex life, not what happens to it. The level of complexity that we Humans posess seems far beyond what evolution could lead to, IMO.
Evolution and ID should both be taught IMO, but NOT as facts. Only as theories, or ideas.
Also how can you determine what is much more likely?
Couldn't help it, I'm here to say (hopefully) one last thing. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html and
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html.
There aren't any limitations on evolution. If aliens could modify our genes, can't we just make ourselves super complex and smart, and with that new smartness make ourselves even more smart?
A theory is an idea, but an idea isn't a theory. See link one.
You can determine which is more likely because Evolution has evidence, while ID only has a mathematical probability of existing.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html.
There aren't any limitations on evolution. If aliens could modify our genes, can't we just make ourselves super complex and smart, and with that new smartness make ourselves even more smart?
A theory is an idea, but an idea isn't a theory. See link one.
You can determine which is more likely because Evolution has evidence, while ID only has a mathematical probability of existing.
You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution.
The only way to decide whether ID has any value is to study evolutionary theory, then listen to what Creationists have to say and weigh things up for yourself. It requires a bit of work to do so but it is infinitely better than wasting time repeating arguments which have been refuted over and over. Creationism has nothing going for it other than a determination to twist some facts, deny others and to mislead those who have no knowledge of evolutionary theory.
Don't ask others; find out for yourself !
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Because he doesn't understand it. My guess is that he doesn't understand it because he never bothered to learn about it.
why does evolution move towards more complex systems (as opposed to simple systems) to better the chance of survival via natural selection?
Or why does matter come to take on life (aka abiogenesis) for the same reason?
Or given the complex information structures that surround genes, how did the means to read molecular information arise separate from a living cell?
etc etc