View Poll Results: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 4.35%
  • no

    66 95.65%
Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 206

Thread: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

  1. #161
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    wow, you found a picture of Intelligent Design.

    Being so breathtakingly intelligent, myself, I decided that the arrangement of my missing links here should resemble that of my middle three fingers as I extend my warmest salutations to all those who have demanded the evidence for such.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  2. #162
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Wow -- someone finally voted for option 1 (49-1)!

    Talk about a champion of the underdog!

    I had neglected to vote, and even though option 2 is where I'm at, I was beginning to consider voting for option 1 just because I was feeling sorry for it.

    I mean, nothing should ever be mauled this badly.

    So .. who was it that voted for option 1? -- I want to shake your hand, you great humanitarian!
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  3. #163
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcogito View Post
    I'm willing to start such a thread. But just to clear things up, between which of these specimens would you consider to be the "missing link"? You know, that we know we are all on the same page. Thanks.

    Attachment 67126631
    The problem is skulls prove nothing, they can be apes that look human but in reality are apes or neanderthals. Theres alot more to it than that. Following is a small excerpt from an interesting site on the subject.

    Notice how Darwin coupled Negroes and Australian Aborigines with gorillas and contrasted them with Caucasians (despite the fact that Negroes, Aborigines and Caucasians are all 100% human, while gorillas are 100% ape). Essentially, this is what modern Darwinists do with groups like the Neanderthals. Neanderthals appear to have been just another race of humans with superficial “ape-like” characteristics like the Australian Aborigines. They appear to have suffered from pathological conditions like rickets and arthritis which exacerbated their superficial ape-like characteristics (rickets is a vitamin D deficiency which softens the bones and can cause people to hunch over). Not only can humans be born with “ape-like” traits like heavy brow ridges and large, jutting jaws, but pathologies like cephalic disorders, syphilis, scurvy and rickets can make them look even more ape-like later in life. But everything we know about Neanderthals suggests that they were just as human as modern-day Australian Aborigines. They were skilled hunters, lived in complex societies, buried their dead, and practiced religion.

    The Missing Link - has it been found?

    Probably should start a separate thread though, this subject could derail this one, I'd participate.

    This is from that site, I never heard this before, YIKES!

    Some 19th- and 20th-century Darwinists thought that all non-Caucasian people were ape-like and therefore inferior to whites. Darwin himself wrote that “at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.
    Last edited by sawyerloggingon; 04-28-12 at 12:46 PM.

  4. #164
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SE Asia
    Last Seen
    07-12-14 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,333

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    The problem is skulls prove nothing, they can be apes that look human but in reality are apes or neanderthals. Theres alot more to it than that. Following is a small excerpt from an interesting site on the subject.

    Notice how Darwin coupled Negroes and Australian Aborigines with gorillas and contrasted them with Caucasians (despite the fact that Negroes, Aborigines and Caucasians are all 100% human, while gorillas are 100% ape). Essentially, this is what modern Darwinists do with groups like the Neanderthals. Neanderthals appear to have been just another race of humans with superficial “ape-like” characteristics like the Australian Aborigines. They appear to have suffered from pathological conditions like rickets and arthritis which exacerbated their superficial ape-like characteristics (rickets is a vitamin D deficiency which softens the bones and can cause people to hunch over). Not only can humans be born with “ape-like” traits like heavy brow ridges and large, jutting jaws, but pathologies like cephalic disorders, syphilis, scurvy and rickets can make them look even more ape-like later in life. But everything we know about Neanderthals suggests that they were just as human as modern-day Australian Aborigines. They were skilled hunters, lived in complex societies, buried their dead, and practiced religion.

    The Missing Link - has it been found?

    Probably should start a separate thread though, this subject could derail this one, I'd participate.
    Yep, Darwin got some things wrong. It was the 1800s after all. But unlike Darwin, we are not just limited to the physical skeletons. We also have DNA. So we can most definitely tell if something is just an "ape that looks human". I'll set aside the fact that humans actually are apes.

    What I find when I continue along this discussion with many creationists (not saying you are one), is it eventually becomes evident that there is no potential discovery that they would accept as definitive. So what characteristics would you expect to see in a specimen that meets your definition of a "missing link"?

  5. #165
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by PW4000 View Post

    Does absolute truth exist?
    To my understanding....No.

    Truth is subjective, and often directly linked to belief. Thus an absolute is impossible...Facts however, most certainly do exist.

  6. #166
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    I did see Redress, above, and replied. I await a response. You're clearly not engaging my posts, which leads me to believe you really don't have an argument. If I'm really incorrect, it would be, or should be, quite easy for you to say why. That you don't is a good indication that you have no real argument.

    In any case, I don't see any resemblance to what I've said and anything an IDer has said. Intelligent Design is a critique of adduced mechanisms of evolution. I'm making some remarks about how science itself is to be defined. The two are obviously different theses, related only insofar as my remarks relate to all of human endeavor. Moreover, I don't support ID, so why my remarks would have any resemblance is rather unclear.
    I have engaged your posts. I did not, however, feel like repeating myself. The no you didn't yes you did type of thing is less than satisifying. Science is defined. I gave you definitions. You gave exampels and said they didn't get to define, and I pointed out they do. Each field does in fact define the tenets of their field. What sicence is by definition is what science is. It makes no difference how much you ponder it, the definition is still the definition.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #167
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,804

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I guess you haven't figured out how to behave. You're probably the biggest atheist on this board, and yet you consistently set the poorest example of trying to prove your point.
    You asked a question, I provided an answer, something you could have done yourself in 3 seconds. Actually, it took Google 0.16 seconds to find it. Maybe you don't understand this debate stuff.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcogito View Post
    Yep, Darwin got some things wrong. It was the 1800s after all. But unlike Darwin, we are not just limited to the physical skeletons. We also have DNA. So we can most definitely tell if something is just an "ape that looks human". I'll set aside the fact that humans actually are apes.

    What I find when I continue along this discussion with many creationists (not saying you are one), is it eventually becomes evident that there is no potential discovery that they would accept as definitive. So what characteristics would you expect to see in a specimen that meets your definition of a "missing link"?
    The jaw seems to be a sticking point, no real transition jaw. By the way I am not a creationist nor a Darwinist nor a warmer nor a Christian nor an atheist nor ......, I am a questioner of everyone that says they know the absolute truth about anything.

    Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?-ramipithecus-20teeth-202-jpg


    From a very informative site. The Evolution of Early Man

  9. #169
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    The "Missing Link"....can be a thousand different things, depending on how far back we decide to go:

    "May 19, 2009—Meet "Ida," the small "missing link" found in Germany that's created a big media splash and will likely continue to make waves among those who study human origins. "

    Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?-090519-missing-link-found_big-jpg

    It is rather obvious that evolution is a better explanation than Some old white guy waving an enchanted potato as he scooped up a chunk of clay he made out of nothing the day before.

  10. #170
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Here's how the missing link argument goes:

    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •