The English language is something else for sure. I think people need to slow down and try harder understanding the context that words are used in. I have never seen so many people (on JU) that seem to have 'pet words' they have predefined just for themselves. Imperialism is one such word. Now I don't know how anyone capable of reading a reasonable dictionary could attach one and only one definition to it ... that is just plain stupid and argumentative and serves no purpose. Brainwashing is another such word … there are many. Everyone knows what patriotism is, they have different ways of expressing it. Patriot is also one of those buzz words. I don’t care to talk about others and avoid it when possible, I just think it is distasteful is all … but he sure does have some hard to understand points of view. Who cares, I am here to enjoy myself and to maybe learn a thing or two.

George Carlin - Dealing with BS Part 1

George is the most brilliant comic eva 

You would think that common sense would enter the fray at some point but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Without even a logical approach (there is none) … it is all pointless. Religion is only of use to the believers and there are no ‘problems’ amongst themselves for sure, hahaha. Science doesn’t have anything to do with theology and the only problems I see are when Christianity attempts to drag science into their make believe world to resurrect the morals of antiquity or whatever … when mankind was in his prime, hehehe. How about all you religious folk deciding what’s what before you ask me to disprove it for you? How about asking the science community what they think…

1. Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&feature=player_embedded

George Carlin died in June, 2008.

Makes running for office very difficult, if not impossible.

All Intelligent Design is for, just as its predecessor Creationism was for; … to try and debunk evolution. It has been proven by the sciences and upheld by the courts. Does anyone see any intelligence in this clip because I sure don’t???

Intelligent Design Theory   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjsIn7yd2x8

This is all so stupid … the first thing I need to know is (hahaha) … who is the designer of all our marvels? Obviously it couldn’t have been Jesus as we were here long before that time. So who could possibly be intelligent enough to accomplish this wonderment I wonder indeed. Are they talking Kirk and company or what hahaha?

So here is the new twist; Since we don’t believe in god(s) … they just take the “GOD” part out and walla … the theists have no more arguments … hahaha … because “God” has been ‘removed’ from the equation and that was their only complaint … got to love this stuff. Our design is pretty intelligent, but the arguments supporting ID are not.

Hahaha I am sure they did. Not sure what else to post here. No one seems interested in rebutting so take that for whatever it is worth, hahaha.

We'll have to wait until Michael Moore takes up the cause. He usually puts a decent sarcastic comic spin into the subject matter he deals with.

In actuality, intelligent design is somewhat of a mental trap. It can really mean two different things;

1) We perceive something to be intelligently designed

and

2) Something was intelligently designed by an intelligent designer

There's too much distance between 1) and 2) in the rhetoric. For example, the video you posted argues point 1. Even the book from the interviewed guy at the end has "chance" as a possibility of intelligent design appearing (of course, they don't mention it). But, for 2) to be true, which is what intelligent design "really is", one must also prove that it WASN'T a result of random acts, that there WAS an intelligent designer. In other words, for intelligent design to be true, one must prove the existence of an intelligent actor. Our perception of whether or not something was intelligently designed is NOT such a proof.

Evolution has already been proven. The evidence is overwhelming. Now, it is up to those who do not believe in it to refute the evidence. And it isn't going to happen through logical fallacies and youtube videos.

For creating a sound argument this is absolutely true, but we have a problem with here...

Quite simply, no...

From an entirely philosophical standpoint, proving that evolution cannot occur randomly is sufficient to proving intelligent design...unless you have a third alternative (something other than scientific laws or an intelligent designer) to how evolution may have occurred, then we are stuck with only two possibilities, and if one of them absolutely is not true, the other possibility must be correct...

Now in practice, completely ruling out science as a possible explanation for evolution is likely impossible...even if science eternally fails to explain evolution, as long as it still has the potential to then we cannot use the failure of science to support intelligent design...

That being said...

Quite simply, no..."overwhelming evidence" does suggest that evolution occurred, but that is not the real point of contention...

We have the process of evolution and the scientific evidence explaining how it occurred, something science has done a great job of developing...but we also have the explanation for why evolution occurred, and science has not completely answered this question...

Suppose we find Jack laying on the ground next to a tree and ladder with his head split open...we can pretty much determine how he died...somehow, the static situation of Jack, the tree, and the ladder was disrupted...Jack progressed to fall following the laws of gravity and kinematics...his head then hit the ground, and knowing what we know about biology and physics, its not so hard to see that hitting his head on the ground could lead to his death...

While there may be other possibilities (aliens could have split his head open, then placed the ladder there to deceive us), the evidence overwhelming suggests that Jack was up on the ladder (or tree) and fell...the proof that evolution did occur may not be 100% perfect but I think trying to argue against it is just plain silly...

In the above example, the evidence indicating how he died thus far has failed to indicate why he died...we know how: gravity, and a soft head...but why Jack fell has yet to be determined...maybe he decided to jump, maybe a ghost scared him, maybe someone pushed him off and then escaped...certainly there could be evidence to suggest why he fell, but it is important to realize there are two separate questions here and overwhelming evidence for answering one does not automatically mean we can answer the other...

For science to explain why evolution occurred, we need more than just an account of "what happened"...we know that molecules chemically interact, and have elaborate theories to explain how those interactions occur...but we also know why chemistry occurs: so particles can move to lower states of energy...

That evolution is possible is obvious, but science is still working on finding the physical laws necessitating or driving biological evolution...personally, I think science will one day find those answers, but until it does intelligent design is just as "silly" as the secular hand-waving used today...

Now I'm just waiting for the inevitable "but natural selection is why evolution occurs"...

Seleuceia, I don't know where you got your information from but you are wrong here. We know what forces allow evolution to work. We just lack an adequate lab to recreate the differing conditions ... and of course there is the time thing ... it takes a lot of time this evolution. When you walk out to your car and start it ... do you ever say to yourself geeze ... "I wonder how is started". How many things are there in our complicated lives that we all use daily and never once ask ourselves "WHY" or "HOW". But evolution is somehow different huh??? As far as I know, nobody is asking for overwhelming evidence ... we just want one tiny shred of proof ... how can that be made into requiring overwhelming evidence? So does this put you in limbo then (“intelligent design is just as "silly" as the secular hand-waving used today...”) no beginning at all for us people then, huh?

The only question I have right now is this; "Is ID about God or not". If it isn't then there are some missing explanations ... and if it is, it is just Creationism revisited as the courts ruled.

Well, then if you want to answer why evolution happened, I can do that very easily, as I did above.

The physical properties of this reality caused it to happen. Either through exogenous factors like radiation, or through the life's own inability to maintain itself.

We are not responsible for educating the masses, at least I am not. If people want to believe there are no ‘gaps’ in evolution, they are entitled to be wrong … so I don’t care what misconceptions they have. All one has to do is poke a few buttons and correct their own errors. There is no point of contention here, not in the learned people anyway. The scientific community has made and proven their case to the satisfaction of all but the religious folk, imagine that hahaha. Even the courts have decided that ID is little more that Creationism revisited. These people are trying to get their stuff past the honesty checkpoints built into our scientific system through the public opinion (how scientific is that). How many scientific concepts do you think were gained through ‘popular opinion’?

The scientific journals are ready to accept papers for peer review on anything put to them in writing … we are still waiting… ID is trying to pass itself off as a ‘science’ is it not. Then what is wrong with doing business normally for a change? But just like all things religious … we are just supposed to believe them … and have faith, hehehe. This is just religion doing the only thing it can to get their foot into the door of reason. Every single ID example I have seen has to do with the intelligent designs all accomplished by humanity. Too bad we are so religiously inadequate as to be unable to tell right from wrong … yet we seem to be good at Intelligent Design. They would DARE to compare US to GOD, hahaha, isn’t that blasphemous?

As to the question of how and why … I would think that either answer would provide all the information necessary to answer both … but I think you are splitting straws here too.

Abiogenesis is an area of research that is seeking to find answers to hypothesis that life can come into being from nonliving materials and I don’t think this has anything to do with ID???