Quote# 39047

Evolution is a meta-theory in the sense that it cannot be tested. If you cannot empirically test or experiment in order to probe the validity of the theory, it cannot be proven or disproven. Scientists rely all-too-heavily on questionable data that either supports the theory or doesn't fit neatly into it. In other words, everything that is evolutionary in nature is explained by evolution, which is practically a tautology.

Second, and more importantly, it is entirely possible to discuss intelligent design without EVER mentioning God. Let me write that a second time so that it sinks in: intelligent design (ID) theory, unlike creationism, uses science and mathematics and does NOT require the use of the word "God."

Newbaum Turk, OSU Sentinel 28 Comments [5/11/2008 1:56:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Snafui

This guy might as well pack his bags and find a new institute of higher learning... he is now a laughing stock at OSU.

5/11/2008 2:11:13 AM

tmr

You didn't describe ID without using god though, so how can anyone believe you?

I wish fundies would find something else to latch onto. I am so tired of the old, endless, ill conceived arguments against evolution.

It must be the biggest threat to their fragile belief, considering how often, and how many people, go to such great lengths to try to refute it.

5/11/2008 2:26:41 AM

Funnyguts

All it takes is one fossil in the wrong spot. Seriously, that's all it takes to disprove evolution.

Everything past the first line is nonsense.

5/11/2008 2:59:21 AM

Old Viking

Truth be told, we're just guessing that the intelligent designer is your God. Call it a strong hunch. Oh, and I hope for your sake that you're not majoring in science.

5/11/2008 3:01:33 AM

Detrs

No.

Name the designer. Go ahead, see how many people will get behind a panspermatic explanation.

5/11/2008 3:11:34 AM

Jedi1josh

"intelligent design (ID) theory, unlike creationism, uses science and mathematics..."

But your mathematics try to say that 2 +2 = cheese.

5/11/2008 3:16:02 AM

Fanatic-Templar

Now, reconcile paragraph one and paragraph two, please.

5/11/2008 4:09:35 AM

ArmandT

The point of intelligent design is that evolution is so improbable it requires a supernatural force to push it along. And what is that force? God!!! What do you think, aliens?

5/11/2008 4:37:19 AM

Damen

And thus the collective IQ of my home state drops a few more points.

5/11/2008 4:46:00 AM

Anon

So for evolution to be true, it must be able to be tested and verified. But it's OK to just assume a supernatural entity exists, and doesn't require proof?

Shiny Mirror award, anyone?

5/11/2008 5:26:21 AM



Thanks for confirming that you've got no idea of science by inventing new terms you don't even know what they may mean.

5/11/2008 6:51:38 AM

LOLKILLZ

WTF? ID says that an intelligent being created us. Either you are saying it's god or some other omnipotent being.

5/11/2008 6:54:10 AM

aaa

And it goes down...

5/11/2008 8:34:03 AM

apYrs

recursive stupidity is still stupidity.

An ID begs the question "who designed the ID?"

Only ultimate answer that can work is "god" (using the given definitions)

5/11/2008 10:07:25 AM

anevilmeme

Lying about evolution and lying about ID, go figure.

5/11/2008 10:10:08 AM

Quantum Mechanic

It's been tested.
You lose.

5/11/2008 10:18:56 AM

Cabal

So, in other words, lie.

5/11/2008 10:37:46 AM

Canadiest

purposely resists using the word God to make it appear scientific while producing no scientific proof

5/11/2008 2:34:09 PM



ID would obviously require some supernatural superior being, it is semantics whether you call it God or whatever, and that goes outside the realm of science or mathematics, so try again.

5/11/2008 5:57:15 PM



Evolution is a meta-theory in the sense that it cannot be tested. If you cannot empirically test or experiment in order to probe the validity of the theory, it cannot be proven or disproven.

Fruit flies alone tend to say otherwise.

Second, and more importantly, it is entirely possible to discuss intelligent design without EVER mentioning God.

So you take the possibility of the designer being aliens from some unknown Planet X to be a viable alternative?

5/11/2008 7:14:23 PM

brianisha

ID is a theory, evolution is a fact. the minute evolutionists called evolution a theory, they let creationists walk all over them. Examples are, monkey killing bushbabies with spear, four legged duck, seven legged lamb, humans with better memories.....

The God of the bible is a douchebag, as much as you dance around the subject, that is the God you are implying.

5/11/2008 10:40:38 PM

Darwin's Lil Girl

Evolution is a meta-theory in the sense that it cannot be tested.

Evolution has a lot of evidence behind it. That is how we test it. Not all theories can be tested in a test tube.

If you cannot empirically test or experiment in order to probe the validity of the theory, it cannot be proven or disproven.

Exactly. Where does that leave your Bible?

Scientists rely all-too-heavily on questionable data that either supports the theory or doesn't fit neatly into it.

No, that's what YOU do.

In other words, everything that is evolutionary in nature is explained by evolution, which is practically a tautology.

I'm sorry, but are you accusing us of the very circular logic you fundies are so insistant on using? i.e., the stuff we don't use?

Second, and more importantly, it is entirely possible to discuss intelligent design without EVER mentioning God.

But you do insist on the presence of a higher power.

Let me write that a second time so that it sinks in: intelligent design (ID) theory, unlike creationism, uses science and mathematics and does NOT require the use of the word "God."

ID "theory" likes to PRETEND it uses science and mathematics. In reality, science points in the opposite direction.

5/12/2008 1:43:12 AM

Giveitaday

If ID is such a credible theory then why does it have NO data to support it? Everything advocating ID just tries (and fails) to disprove evolution. Scientific theories rise and fall on their testable and repeatable data. Where's yours?

5/12/2008 2:29:21 AM

JonnyTruant

Nope, doesn't need the word God or 'creator'. Instead, you substitue 'designer.' What a difference! What is this designer,perchance? And all-powerful being who could be described as a 'god' yet for this argument we'll forgo that because it would mess with your argument.

Never mind that all of living nature is testable evidence for evolution...

5/12/2008 3:24:55 AM

El Guapo

Observations that would falsify evolutionary theory:

1. Isotope tests that indicate that the world is a few thousand years old.
2. Similarly, astronomical data that would indicate that the Universe is the same age as the earth.
3. Any observation that would undermine the tenets of Darwin's theory of natural selection
a. Variation in a population is not heritable
b. Organisms reproductive success is independent of genetic makeup.
4. Lack of any uniting synapomorphy tying all life to a single common ancestor (ok...not really a falsifier, but certainly does not support evolutionary theory)
5. Geological strata that contain fossils from many different time periods simultaneously.

etc., etc.

What could one possibly observe that could not be explained away by intelligent design?

5/12/2008 9:38:04 PM

1 2 | top: comments page