anyone to go the: Does God exist debate at UBC?

[pstylez]

Originally Posted by G3N3R4L

Cal Naughton, Jr.: I had a dream where Jesus was a dirty old bum, and I was about to sock him in the face because, well he's a dirty old bum, but then I thought, theres something special about him...

Sounds like George Bush on a Coke binge...

[azazel]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Anybody who says that following the Bible to a tee is the only way to be morally righteous is a religious nut, yes.

Go read Deuteronomy or Leviticus cover to cover and count the number of reasons you're going to hell. If it's anything less than 100 you're probably Amish.

Intelligent Design doesn't support the Bible. It doesn't support anything. IT'S NOT SCIENCE.

this is exactly the milquetoast that turns people off, not 'intelligent design'.

Atheists see 'christians' who are more interested in making friends and filling pews rather than preaching with authority power, not sure if what they believe is even true or more importantly, politically correct.

[azazel]

http://www.theedgeam.com/interviews/...r_02.24.07.mp3

[Ms.Tarantula]

I'm gonna bite my tongue on the topic of this thread...

but the way the tittle was written is atrocious.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by azazel

this is exactly the milquetoast that turns people off, not 'intelligent design'.

Atheists see 'christians' who are more interested in making friends and filling pews rather than preaching with authority power, not sure if what they believe is even true or more importantly, politically correct.

It's not a science it's not a science it's not a science

Give me one testable hypothesis that ID gives us and I'll call it a science. Otherwise it's pure speculation. Speculation is not science.

[kir mokum]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

It's not a science it's not a science it's not a science

Give me one testable hypothesis that ID gives us and I'll call it a science. Otherwise it's pure speculation. Speculation is not science.

is that like the speculation that god exists? or is that a different type of speculation?

[wishbone]

*leans back on his deist beliefs*

[azazel]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

It's not a science it's not a science it's not a science

Give me one testable hypothesis that ID gives us and I'll call it a science. Otherwise it's pure speculation. Speculation is not science.

as opposed to evolution?

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by azazel

as opposed to evolution?

current records have been around to document small but incremental evolution changes.

ie: a lot of moths have a grey speckled pattern here and in Europe because during the industrial revolution, those are the ones that camouflaged best.

[azazel]

Originally Posted by wishbone

current records have been around to document small but incremental evolution changes.

ie: a lot of moths have a grey speckled pattern here and in Europe because during the industrial revolution, those are the ones that camouflaged best.

if you're talking about the ones where they find bone fragments and draw in the rest of what it "should look like" i'm unconvinced.

didn't Darwin say transitional species should be found anytime your shovel hit the ground?

[kir mokum]

maybe you should listen to what evolutionary biologist have to say about evolution as opposed to whatever intellectual black hole you're currently listening to.

[azazel]

Originally Posted by kir mokum

maybe you should listen to what evolutionary biologist have to say about evolution as opposed to whatever intellectual black hole you're currently listening to.

maybe i should also listen to my doctor who pushes pills like they were coming out of Pez dispenser.

after all, he's edjumacated.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by azazel

if you're talking about the ones where they find bone fragments and draw in the rest of what it "should look like" i'm unconvinced.

didn't Darwin say transitional species should be found anytime your shovel hit the ground?

i'm no biologist, buti don't think moths leave bone fragments.

[azazel]

Originally Posted by wishbone

i'm no biologist, buti don't think moths leave bone fragments.

and everything else?

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by azazel

as opposed to evolution?

Here's one: Characteristics more likely to aid a species' ability to live long enough to reproduce will become more prominent in later generations.

You can test this through DNA transformation - giving antibiotic genes to bacteria, putting them in an environment with non-antibiotic resistant bacteria where there is a small but significant probability of them encountering an antibiotic. then take early generations of those bacteria and freeze them. Leave the cultures to evolve, then take equal samples of both the early generations and the later generation and see put them in fully antibiotic environments. Then see which one is more successful at reproducing in the antibiotic environment.

Just one example.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by azazel

and everything else?

i can't deny ID. I can't.

What i CAN suggest is that they both occur. ID started it all, and species have evolved since. I know this doesn't agree with everything evolved right from amoebas or whatever, but I think for theists to ignore the science that evolution CAN and DOES occur is pretty silly.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by azazel

as opposed to evolution?

evolution is testible and we have evidence of it, we even have evidence that it exists from the evolution of animals even in very recent times.

[Grapes]

I can't be bothered to read this thread, what was decided, God or no God?

[azazel]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Here's one: Characteristics more likely to aid a species' ability to live long enough to reproduce will become more prominent in later generations.

You can test this through DNA transformation - giving antibiotic genes to bacteria, putting them in an environment where there is a small but significant probability of them encountering an antibiotic. then take early generations of those bacteria and freeze them. Leave the cultures to evolve, then take equal samples of both the early generations and the later generation and see put them in fully antibiotic environments. Then see which one is more successful at reproducing in the antibiotic environment.

Just one example.

how about on the macro level.

like say molecule to fully formed man

[azazel]

way to be mature, SEAN

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by azazel

how about on the macro level.

like say molecule to fully formed man

I believe it's plausible, but I can't commit to it. Evolution as a source for all life on earth is still a theory iirc. Evolution as a process for adaption is proven fact, though.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by azazel

if you're talking about the ones where they find bone fragments and draw in the rest of what it "should look like" i'm unconvinced.

didn't Darwin say transitional species should be found anytime your shovel hit the ground?

Darwin also didn't live in a time when fossil evidence was commonplace.

The scientists who come up with these theories are often shown wrong in many occasions. That's what the scientific process does. So we adapt and change the theories to better explain other observed phenomena. Science is a continuous process and there is never a final answer. Just revisions and better understanding of how things work.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by wishbone

i can't deny ID. I can't.

What i CAN suggest is that they both occur. ID started it all, and species have evolved since. I know this doesn't agree with everything evolved right from amoebas or whatever, but I think for theists to ignore the science that evolution CAN and DOES occur is pretty silly.

i dont understand how people who actually believe in god need something like ID to confirm their beliefs. evolution and the big bang could all be processes set forth by god, they dont necessarily negate god's existence.

[kir mokum]

Originally Posted by azazel

didn't Darwin say transitional species should be found anytime your shovel hit the ground?

that's because ALL species are transitional.

[azazel]

Originally Posted by wishbone

I believe it's plausible, but I can't commit to it. Evolution as a source for all life on earth is still a theory iirc. Evolution as a process for adaption is proven fact, though.

adaptation i'm down with. just not the whole ape to man thing.