+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 52
General Chat Thread, It couldn't happen in the USA in General; Here is something for the creationists that usually has them stumped. If humans were a product of Intelligent Design (ID), ...
  1. #16

    nephilim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dunstable
    Posts
    12,281
    Thank Post
    1,670
    Thanked 2,018 Times in 1,467 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    451
    Here is something for the creationists that usually has them stumped.

    If humans were a product of Intelligent Design (ID), why do we have such obvious flaws?

    Examples
    Appendicitis - surely if the human body was intelligently designed then it wouldn't need the appendix or the appendix wouldn't fail in the way that it does.
    Human Organs - Aside from Brain, Heart and Lungs, the remaining vital organs are not protected by any bones - Liver, kidneys, spleen, digestive tract etc, all out in the open so to speak. Intelligent designing would have had them all protected.

    This is just 2 of the examples I can think of whilst sitting here, I could think of more. Also ID doesn't offer any proof, it just misshapes and distorts the evolutionary theory because ID has no basis in fact, whereas evolution does.

  2. #17

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    5,137
    Thank Post
    917
    Thanked 1,524 Times in 1,037 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    655
    Related article: 10 Scientific Ideas That Scientists Wish You Would Stop Misusing

    (and also 10 Pseudo-Science Theories We'd Like to See Retired Forever for the quote on homeopathy: "Homeopathy claims water can cure you, because it once held medicine. That's like saying you can eat off an empty plate because it once held food.")

    Also, generally, hurrah for common sense prevailing. ID/Creationism is demonstrably not scientific (makes no predictions that can be tested etc.) and therefore does not belong in the science classroom. That is as far as the discussion needs to go. Teach it in RE if you must teach it, along with all the other fairy tales.

  3. #18
    tommej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    727
    Thank Post
    39
    Thanked 150 Times in 108 Posts
    Rep Power
    81
    This only seems to apply to state funded schools unless I'm missing something. Has anyone actually seen creationism being taught as science, pretty sure 99% of people would laugh at the stupidity in this country.

  4. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,104
    Thank Post
    95
    Thanked 189 Times in 156 Posts
    Rep Power
    84
    I believe in both and all. We all live in a simulated universe with laws of evolution but that simulated universe was created by an intelligence.

    Bang, everyone is right and we all get along.

  5. #20

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    5,137
    Thank Post
    917
    Thanked 1,524 Times in 1,037 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by tommej View Post
    This only seems to apply to state funded schools unless I'm missing something. Has anyone actually seen creationism being taught as science, pretty sure 99% of people would laugh at the stupidity in this country.
    It applies to academies and free schools, LEA schools presumably already being unable to teach it. It doesn't affect private schools or nurseries.

    From the British Humanist Association, who've been campaigning on the issue:
    In other words, in the Government’s view, if an Academy or Free School teaches creationism as scientifically valid then it is breaking the requirement to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. As every Academy and Free School has this requirement in its funding agreement, the implication of this interpretation is that no Academy and Free School, existing or future, can teach pseudoscience.

    ...

    'However, there are other ongoing areas of concern, for example the large number of state financed creationist nurseries, or the inadequate inspection of private creationist schools, and continued vigilance is needed in the state-funded sector.'
    Also: check out the header image there. As if I didn't have enough reasons to love Patrick Stewart already!

  6. #21


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,289
    Thank Post
    290
    Thanked 885 Times in 663 Posts
    Rep Power
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    I believe in both and all. We all live in a simulated universe with laws of evolution but that simulated universe was created by an intelligence.
    The problem with the simulated universe stuff is there is no way to test it because a simulated universe looks exactly the same to someone inside as a 'natural' universe. As a theory it fails on testability, predictability and falsifiability and when it falls on Occam's Razor, it's blooded corpse is added to the pile of gore that failed the test for simplicity.

  7. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,104
    Thank Post
    95
    Thanked 189 Times in 156 Posts
    Rep Power
    84
    The problem with the simulated universe stuff is there is no way to test it because a simulated universe looks exactly the same to someone inside as a 'natural' universe. As a theory it fails on testability, predictability and falsifiability and when it falls on Occam's Razor, it's blooded corpse is added to the pile of gore that failed the test for simplicity.
    But it is statistically more likely than not, its just not testable with the tools and knowledge we have now. Example, the Earth is round, it is testable but that was not always the belief.

  8. #23

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    5,137
    Thank Post
    917
    Thanked 1,524 Times in 1,037 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    But it is statistically more likely than not
    You what? How'd you figure that? I don't even know what statistical test you could apply

  9. #24

    nephilim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dunstable
    Posts
    12,281
    Thank Post
    1,670
    Thanked 2,018 Times in 1,467 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    But it is statistically more likely than not, its just not testable with the tools and knowledge we have now. Example, the Earth is round, it is testable but that was not always the belief.
    Wrong...Earth is not round, hell, earth is not even a sphere....it is an oblate Spheroid with its structure being closer to a pumpkin that a sphere.

  10. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,104
    Thank Post
    95
    Thanked 189 Times in 156 Posts
    Rep Power
    84
    Simulated theory is testable, this is one way Do we live in the Matrix? Scientists believe they may have answered the question - Telegraph

    but I have seen other ways in New Scientist about how it could be tested.

  11. #26
    tommej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    727
    Thank Post
    39
    Thanked 150 Times in 108 Posts
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by nephilim View Post
    Here is something for the creationists that usually has them stumped.

    If humans were a product of Intelligent Design (ID), why do we have such obvious flaws?

    Examples
    Appendicitis - surely if the human body was intelligently designed then it wouldn't need the appendix or the appendix wouldn't fail in the way that it does.
    Human Organs - Aside from Brain, Heart and Lungs, the remaining vital organs are not protected by any bones - Liver, kidneys, spleen, digestive tract etc, all out in the open so to speak. Intelligent designing would have had them all protected.

    This is just 2 of the examples I can think of whilst sitting here, I could think of more. Also ID doesn't offer any proof, it just misshapes and distorts the evolutionary theory because ID has no basis in fact, whereas evolution does.
    Or you could just ask them to explain the science behind 2 of every animal on a wooden boat :P

  12. #27

    Andrew_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester
    Posts
    3,052
    Thank Post
    64
    Thanked 391 Times in 299 Posts
    Rep Power
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by nephilim View Post
    it is an oblate Spheroid with its structure being closer to a pumpkin that a sphere.
    By 40-odd kilometres; hardly "pumpkin shaped".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tommej View Post
    Or you could just ask them to explain the science behind 2 of every animal on a wooden boat :P
    Ermm... Only 2* certain specified species. ISTR it was seven of most.

    In Genesis 7, God instructed Noah to take onboard the ark certain animals in order to save them from the Flood. Concerning clean animals, He said:
    Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female; and of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his female (7:2).
    Must have got quite crowded; can you imagine the stench?
    Last edited by Andrew_C; 19th June 2014 at 11:28 AM.

  13. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,104
    Thank Post
    95
    Thanked 189 Times in 156 Posts
    Rep Power
    84
    Something else that I always wonder is, if their is a God, would said God really want me to worship them.

  14. #29

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,878
    Thank Post
    879
    Thanked 959 Times in 790 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    339
    What is the definition of a God? And, if they exist, how did they come into being? Do Gods have Gods?

  15. #30


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,289
    Thank Post
    290
    Thanked 885 Times in 663 Posts
    Rep Power
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    Simulated theory is testable, this is one way Do we live in the Matrix? Scientists believe they may have answered the question - Telegraph

    but I have seen other ways in New Scientist about how it could be tested.
    I think your problem is right there in the language. A good experiment doesn't set our to prove a hypothesis, it sets out to disprove it. Science doesn't prove things, but it does (and frequently) disprove them. Besides that, the speculative posits you cite are far from saying it _is_ testable, just that there _may_ be tests we can do. But if the universe is a simulation run by super-beings, they can just pause and write whatever they need to stop us from figuring it out. So it might not be testable at all (and the philosophical notion of a perfect simulation is that there is no test). It also, like the "god did it" meme, doesn't explain anything of itself, infact it poses more questions than it answers. Sure we may be simulated but where did the beings doing the simulation come from. Is it turtles all the way down?

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Education IT jobs in the USA?
    By rpycroft in forum Educational IT Jobs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22nd July 2013, 07:31 AM
  2. Educational IT in the USA
    By _Bat_ in forum US General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 24th June 2013, 02:38 AM
  3. Any IT Tech/Traniee jobs in the north east?
    By waterson89 in forum Educational IT Jobs
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 13th May 2011, 10:54 AM
  4. [Pics] What really happened in the situation room
    By roty80 in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 4th May 2011, 08:25 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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