NA » Poll: Intelligent Design or Evolution?

Poll: Intelligent Design or Evolution? which do you side with?

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:50:35 PM

ankermane (49)

(Erik ) < Kraid Killer >

Posts: 2062 - Joined: 11/06/2008

California

Profile

Recently, I watched a rather fascinating documentary called 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.' If you haven't watched it, no matter what side you're on, it's still a compelling view from either perspectives (although both sides may find it compelling for entirely different reasons):

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/ex...

And this film got me thinking... for the most part, the retro collector's age group is still a fairly young audience (18-45 yr olds), so I'd be curious to see where the younger generation's stand on such a controversial topic and their reasonings behind it? As always, keep it civil, but don't mistake civility for an entertaining & informative read. Let the battle begin!

-------------------------

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:59:18 PM

cradelit (21)

(crade lit) < Bowser >

Posts: 5673 - Joined: 08/18/2009

Alberta

Profile

Theres no hard agnostic button.
It's obviously imposible to answer and a moot point. Wheres that option?

-------------------------
GRRR!

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:02:02 PM

removed04092017 (0)

This user has been banned -- click for more information.

< Bowser >

Posts: 7316 - Joined: 12/04/2010

Other

Profile

I believe in science firmly. I also believe there is something above us, though. I agree with Cradelit, don't think it can be proven or disproven really. I just say cool and get on with stuff, as long as they don't try to shove it down my throat.

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:10:51 PM

ankermane (49)

(Erik ) < Kraid Killer >

Posts: 2062 - Joined: 11/06/2008

California

Profile

Originally posted by: cradelit

Theres no hard agnostic button.
It's obviously imposible to answer and a moot point. Wheres that option?

Well if you're agnostic you're on the fence about a God, correct? Well then you have a reason right there. Why are you on the fence? I'd be curious. Just not interested, no proof, what? There's a million reasons for being agnostic.

-------------------------

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:13:56 PM

RetroSauce (176)

(Andrew Sauce) < Kraid Killer >

Posts: 2211 - Joined: 01/03/2012

Indiana

Profile

"If we long to believe that the stars rise and set before us, that we are a reason there is a universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?"

I absolutely love science. It's pointless to get into arguments with people that say the earth is 6,000 years old. They don't play by the same rules.

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:14:16 PM

bunnyboy (81)

(Funktastic B) < Master Higgins >

Posts: 7704 - Joined: 02/28/2007

California

Profile

You have far too few options, they are not mutually exclusive. What about evolution created by intelligent design?

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:14:24 PM

Suck my dick (61)

< Lolo Lord >

Posts: 1775 - Joined: 10/02/2012

Nevada

Profile

What about if evolution was part of our intelligent desing?

-------------------------

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:18:25 PM

cradelit (21)

(crade lit) < Bowser >

Posts: 5673 - Joined: 08/18/2009

Alberta

Profile

There are two types of agnostic, soft and hard. A soft agnostic is looking for answers and a hard has decided accepted that he/she shall never know for some reason.

In terms of evolution or design:
Science tells us how things work. It doesn't tell us why. Whether the world has been around a million years or was created exactly as it is a minute ago to me is impossible to know and makes no difference how things work and no difference to any decisions I make anyway, making it a moot question with no answer.

-------------------------
GRRR!

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:18:43 PM

N64 Gamer (17)

< El Ripper >

Posts: 1419 - Joined: 05/06/2012

Other

Profile

I agree with cradelit.

I'm an agnostic because I do not believe that anything in this world can be proven 100%.
Theories that we have in science, such as Newton's 3 laws, etc. are all theories. They aren't facts, but ideas and hypothesis that we believe to be true because we haven't found any arguments to discard those theories.

Who is to say that there isn't something undiscovered in our world that could prove all of our theories wrong? We can't know that for sure. We can assume that something is 99.999% sure but never 100%.

I really like Karl Popper's Falsifiability. I think going by that philosophy, it's impossible to prove 100% that ID is correct, but at the same time it's impossible to prove 100% that Evolution is correct. Thus, agnosticism.

-------------------------
My WTB thread
Buying Zelda CIB NES/SNES/N64 games in mint conditions! (Both NTSC and PAL)

Also looking for Phantom Hourglass NFR Demo (PAL) and Twilight Princess NFR Demo (PAL)

Edited: 03/13/2013 at 03:19 PM by N64 Gamer

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:21:12 PM

T3rra (85)

(Terra ) < King Solomon >

Posts: 3251 - Joined: 03/26/2011

Washington

Profile

I vote intelligent design.

If you say "what about evolution as part of intelligent design" then vote intelligent design.

As I read it, voting evolution is voting no intelligent design, voting intelligent design doesn't rule out that evolution could have happened, but that it had to have been started by someone or something intelligent.

I love that documentary. I thought it was very well done, and I ended up buying it. I've seen it a few times now.

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:22:21 PM

ADMINISTRATOR
K.Thrower (120)

(Kenny Boy) < Master Higgins >

Posts: 8800 - Joined: 08/08/2010

Colorado

Profile

I wish they would bring back Win Ben Stein's Money. That was a great show!

-------------------------
Ready for adventure!
www.watagames.com...

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:25:55 PM

Suck my dick (61)

< Lolo Lord >

Posts: 1775 - Joined: 10/02/2012

Nevada

Profile

Also I voted intelligent desing, I just don't see how we can evolve from primates or such things, plus evolution in just a theory not a fact.

-------------------------

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:28:04 PM

removed04092017 (0)

< Bowser >

Posts: 7316 - Joined: 12/04/2010

Other

Profile

Just gonna throw this out there about Newtons Laws being theories...they're laws because they're not theories. We know how they work. It's the Law of Physics, not the Theories of Physics. Try arguing that the Pythagorean Theorm isn't true...you can't, because it is. Just because they have the word theory attached doesn't mean they're not tried and tested and 100% true.

Edited: 03/13/2013 at 03:30 PM by removed04092017

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:31:29 PM

PowerPlayers (87)

(The Phleo) < Bowser >

Posts: 7379 - Joined: 11/06/2011

New Jersey

Profile

Why can't I choose both?

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:33:06 PM

dra600n (300)

(Adym \m/) < Bonk >

Posts: 16989 - Joined: 09/16/2010

Connecticut

Profile

It's Pythagorean theorem, not theory. It's been proven, so theory is out, theorem is its replacement

-------------------------
Proud owner of post #1800 in Inner Circle HQ thread

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:36:39 PM

N64 Gamer (17)

< El Ripper >

Posts: 1419 - Joined: 05/06/2012

Other

Profile

Originally posted by: 3GenGames

Just gonna throw this out there about Newtons Laws being theories...they're laws because they're not theories. We know how they work. It's the Law of Physics, not the Theories of Physics. Try arguing that the Pythagorean Theorm isn't true...you can't, because it is. Just because they have the word theory attached doesn't mean they're not tried and tested and 100% true.

The point is that according to the philosophies of Karl Popper, nothing, even laws can be considered 100% true, because there is always a chance that a new discovery in the future might prove it wrong. We just don't know it, until it is discovered.

That is the whole beauty of science. You keep challenging theories and hypothesis and when you prove a theory wrong, you replace it with another theory that is even more accurate, and thus science evolves and becomes stronger.

To say that one theory or hypothesis is the absolute truth and there is no way of challenging it, is the same as stopping the progress of science, imo.

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:38:07 PM

ankermane (49)

(Erik ) < Kraid Killer >

Posts: 2062 - Joined: 11/06/2008

California

Profile

Originally posted by: bunnyboy

You have far too few options, they are not mutually exclusive. What about evolution created by intelligent design?

I intended it to be that way. Too much of a slippery slope otherwise. But like someone mentioned above, if you believe it in fact was intelligent design which created evolution, intelligent design is your horse.

-------------------------

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:50:18 PM

ankermane (49)

(Erik ) < Kraid Killer >

Posts: 2062 - Joined: 11/06/2008

California

Profile

Originally posted by: psychobear85

Also I voted intelligent desing, I just don't see how we can evolve from primates or such things, plus evolution in just a theory not a fact.

Google will be your best friend in the future. If you don't know something, look it up. We are very fortunate to have so much information at our fingertips. And the term 'theory' in science is completely different than the way you're perceiving it in the, "I have a theory..." Much more complex yet so brilliant. Here, I'll pull up your theory answer for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scie...

Now you know. Now take this knowledge and apply it to intelligent design and work backwards.

-------------------------

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:56:20 PM

Lincoln (138)

(Frank W. Doom) < Bowser >

Posts: 5980 - Joined: 12/19/2008

California

Profile

As an informational service to everyone here, when people argue intelligent design vs evolution, the debate is which is responsible for the diversity of existing species. The intelligent design crowd assigns this responsibility to a supreme creator (God for all intents and purposes, but not explicitly stated), and that this started in the range of 6000-10000 years ago. Science backs evolution obviously, specifically macroevolution in this case.

Some additional points:

the "theory" of evolution is not a theory as used in common language, indicating a guess about something. In scientific terms, a theory is a formulated explanation of observed events. If new evidences is found that contradicts theory, the theory may be modified to fit the evidence.

Evolution does not account for the origins of life, only speciation.

Evolution does not say humans evolved from monkeys. Humans and monkeys and other primates have a common ancestor species that no longer exists.

ID believers do not necessarily reject evolution outright. They may accept the process of evolution is occurring (microevolution), but do not believe that long term evolution (macroevolution) could be responsible for the extreme diversity and complexity of species currently on earth.

I would be happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability if anyone is not clear on something.

-------------------------
ebay auctions / running FS thread / famiROM thread for .nes info and splitting / rom hacks link/discussion

Mar 13, 2013 at 4:21:21 PM

buttheadrulesagain (20)

(Jorge Juarez) < King Solomon >

Posts: 4206 - Joined: 12/24/2009

Mexico

Profile

Originally posted by: Lincoln

As an informational service to everyone here, when people argue intelligent design vs evolution, the debate is which is responsible for the diversity of existing species. The intelligent design crowd assigns this responsibility to a supreme creator (God for all intents and purposes, but not explicitly stated), and that this started in the range of 6000-10000 years ago. Science backs evolution obviously, specifically macroevolution in this case.

Some additional points:

the "theory" of evolution is not a theory as used in common language, indicating a guess about something. In scientific terms, a theory is a formulated explanation of observed events. If new evidences is found that contradicts theory, the theory may be modified to fit the evidence.

Evolution does not account for the origins of life, only speciation.

Evolution does not say humans evolved from monkeys. Humans and monkeys and other primates have a common ancestor species that no longer exists.

ID believers do not necessarily reject evolution outright. They may accept the process of evolution is occurring (microevolution), but do not believe that long term evolution (macroevolution) could be responsible for the extreme diversity and complexity of species currently on earth.

I would be happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability if anyone is not clear on something.

Spot on. I want to add that evolution as science concensus poses it, does not involve an intelligent designer at all. If it was, it'd be truly a wasteful process (more than 90% of the species that have existed are extint today), instead of making humanity arise by other means. In fact, all evidence points to no designer. If you want to add a designer (a well defined one anyways), you can make predictions about how different would be life on earth, if it was a designer, and not a materialistic blind-to-the-future process. For example, you'd think that a perfect designer would make perfect designs, and that's not the case in many examples of adaptations that exist today.

A good read on the matter: http://www.whyilefttherevivalfell...

Oh, and actually, we've seen speciation (it's common for populations of plants to lose the ability to interbreed, by means of changes in ploidy), just not divergence as big as fish vs mammals. For more basal divergence, there are lots of transitional fossils that show how it has happened at many levels in different places of the tree of life.

-------------------------

Edited: 03/13/2013 at 04:27 PM by buttheadrulesagain

Mar 13, 2013 at 4:30:04 PM

MAIL_BAG (151)

(Rip ) < King Solomon >

Posts: 3348 - Joined: 10/29/2012

Virginia

Profile

I believe that Mario's mustache smells like oregano and Link is a nerd.

Edited: 03/13/2013 at 05:21 PM by MAIL_BAG

Mar 13, 2013 at 4:48:43 PM

cradelit (21)

(crade lit) < Bowser >

Posts: 5673 - Joined: 08/18/2009

Alberta

Profile

The word theory is exactly as it sounds and science makes no statements about whether diversity actually happened though evolution or not, only that existing evidence is consistent with that theory. It's different from a guess, it's a theory.

Of course, any and all scientific evidence that supports the theory that diversity came from macro evolution by neccesity also supports the theory that it was just made to look like it did. How could it not?

-------------------------
GRRR!

Mar 13, 2013 at 4:55:25 PM

Suck my dick (61)

< Lolo Lord >

Posts: 1775 - Joined: 10/02/2012

Nevada

Profile

Originally posted by: ankermane

Originally posted by: psychobear85

Also I voted intelligent desing, I just don't see how we can evolve from primates or such things, plus evolution in just a theory not a fact.

Google will be your best friend in the future. If you don't know something, look it up. We are very fortunate to have so much information at our fingertips. And the term 'theory' in science is completely different than the way you're perceiving it in the, "I have a theory..." Much more complex yet so brilliant. Here, I'll pull up your theory answer for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Now you know. Now take this knowledge and apply it to intelligent design and work backwards.

I know how to use google, but thank you. I obviously found this place.

Took this from wiki

"Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time."

to me this means that it not a fact if they need to keep gathering evedince to back up what they say them to me is just a theory and not a fact and this is based of my opinions and the way I look at life.

-------------------------

Mar 13, 2013 at 4:59:24 PM

buttheadrulesagain (20)

(Jorge Juarez) < King Solomon >

Posts: 4206 - Joined: 12/24/2009

Mexico

Profile

Given the evidence, evolution had to happen, as it only means "change" (which you can see in fossils: the ID alternative is that the devil made the fossils and put them in the right order to confound us ). Mechanisms of evolution are another story, but it's generally agreed that most diversity was the product of natural selection, a process that has been observed, and that has been seen to promote speciation.

Theory in the scientific sense also means that you can make predictions of facts yet unseen. Since the writting of the Origin of Species by Darwin, there have been predictions that have been shown true later on. For example, the theory posed common ancestry of species. If that was the case, these species would show said ancestry on their DNA, and bam, that's how it is. It is true even for non-coding regions. Many more examples of predictions fulfilled by the theory are in the link I posted before.

-------------------------

Edited: 03/13/2013 at 05:00 PM by buttheadrulesagain

Mar 13, 2013 at 5:09:35 PM

bunnyboy (81)

(Funktastic B) < Master Higgins >

Posts: 7704 - Joined: 02/28/2007

California

Profile

Originally posted by: psychobear85

"Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time."

to me this means that it not a fact if they need to keep gathering evedince to back up what they say them to me is just a theory and not a fact and this is based of my opinions and the way I look at life.

Intelligent design has no evidence, so it cannot get more accurate, and (by design!) cannot be tested or proven. If you reject evolution because it is not a fact, then intelligent design must also be rejected because it is not a fact. Otherwise you are randomly picking based on feelings instead of reasoning, which cannot be debated.