/sci/ - Science & Math

America has reached a new low,

evolution is a flawed theory at best.

I was going to make a thread for this, but whatever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXQO4S7XIkI

Christine O'Donnell, on the subject of not knowing that the First Amendment mandates the separation of church and state.

I swear to God if the tea party doesn't turn out to be the most elaborate joke in history...

>>1922286
Oh that's quite an understatement, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or joking here.

>using the term "theory" to discredit something as worthless as mere conjecture

>ohlookitsthisthreadagain.dmg

>>1922312
Bitch be hot though. Bitch be hot.

>>1922320

Look at it this way:
You can reach out and touch your screen. Fact, right? No. Not a fact. Why? Because you can't prove without a doubt that imminent death isn't headed your way before you can do it.

Seriously, just because you can't "prove" some things doesn't mean you should question their legitimacy. Call evolution a "theory" if you want, but there's a METRIC FUCKTON of evidence supporting it. The similarities between the DNA many animals should be enough, for fuck's sake.

>>1922323

>>1922326

>>1922331
Though I find it to be a shame that she's college educated... And still spouting shit.

>>1922312
>Show me a parent that allows their children to go on play dates and I'll show you a parent whose kids are attending orgy school.

She didn't actually say this, did she? Sauce? Googling "orgy school" was pretty cool but didn't give me the information about this.

Are these actual quotes of her?

>>1922335
But damn bitch, you are hot. Almost like one of the Jewish girls where I pretend to be interested in their Zionist beliefs just to sleep with them.

No. NO. Evolution is an empirically verifiable fact. "The theory of evolution" is our attempt to explain a naturally occurring constant.

>>1922340
Those aren't actual quotes by her, but knowing her you wouldn't be surprised. Again, she hasn't said these quotes exactly, but often times what she talks about consists of something like these. Just Youtube her for a half-hour.

>>1922335
>>1922331
>>1922326
>>1922323
>>1922320
>>1922312
are these actual quotes from this woman?

>>1922347
Also, the Jewish women that don't have any Zionist belief end up as keepers. Too bad Christine O'Donnell is an evangelist.

>>1922312
>>1922320
>>1922323
>>1922326
>>1922331
>>1922335

LMAO, that is one funny bitch! These are freaking highlarious! I cant people there are retards that actuallly would vote for her dumb ass! Thanks for these funny (and true) pics!
I can always count on republicans for a good laugh

>>1922354
Republicans, sigh.

>>1922350
No, but she does talk about these things at times, with as much intellect.

>>1922360
So beautiful. I guess I have a thing for brunettes and Italians.

>>1922365
Well at least she's a very photogenic person.

>>1922368

>>1922369

>Don't see threads about gravitational theory.

>>1922365
Yeah, Id fuck her stupid....O wait....TOO LATE

She could single handedly set the womens right movement back 50 years!

>>1922373
Sorry guys, but this is the last one I have of the set, the final piece. I hope you enjoy a taste of what her politics are like, and my fapping material. Good day nonetheless.

>>1922356


>implying she has any chance of winning whatsoever

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate/delaware

Masturbation. Sigh. Christine O'Donnell is against polishing the longsword because there's some vague comment in the old Testament about Onan.

Women who espouse biblical literalism never cease to amaze me. Have they never read the Old Testament?

just like gravity, it is just a theory, anyone who actually takes it as fact is a retard. but the bible is fact, because the bible says it is so it must be

>>1922377
thanks anon!
That was a really good laugh!

sex tapes, sex tapes everywhere

>>1922378

The fact that she may get 40% of the vote is still very disturbing.

You are now aware that she didn't say any of those things.

>>1922378
>coons

>>1922398
yeah, the bloke who was posting them already admitted that

but take it from someone who has seen her on tv and in action, she is pretty fucking stupid

I just read her bio on Wikipedia.

Poor woman is a complete and utter trainwreck.

>my face when people are giving a fuck about Delaware

>DELAWARE

>AHAHAHAHAHA

>>1922404
I saw the first half of her interview with the democrat fag she's running against. She did better and sounded more intelligent than the democrat fag.

>>1922425
>democrat fag
I'm suspecting pre-existing bias instead.

>>1922425
>>1922425


>She did better and sounded more intelligent than the democrat fag.

MAXIMAM TRLLAN

Coons is a good guy. And you didn't see shit.

>>1922425
LMAO....what debate were you watching? Cause the one that the rest of america saw, made her look like a dumbfuck.

I cant be mad at you though, this thread has already made me laugh so much!
Troll a little harder bro!

>>1922432
Coons is a massive faggot. Every question he say, "oh wow, it would take me a REAALY long time to respond to that, hehehehe, so I'll just sit here and look smug instead". Total asshole. Reminded me of algore.

>>1922444
How about the time when he asked odonell, "which constitution should we be following, the one the founding fathers wrote or the new one that lets women have abortions?" I wanted to smack him so hard. How can you run for office and not believe in democracy?

>>1922278

Listen, I don't care at all about her shitty interpretation of Christianity, there are a lot of batshit fundamentalists already in the Senate and the House, but the bitch is stupid enough, literally stupid enough to ask a lawyer (Coons) while she was debating him in a law school about where the Constitution says that Church and State should be separated. An AP article said that the people in the audience "gasped" after she said that. When your audience gasps at your stupidity its because your head is such a dense piece of skull that it is sucking the oxygen out of the room.

That is a new level of stupid. Palin was just uninformed and slow witted. however, she never asked a question of such unrivaled stupidity. There are a couple of things about the Constitution that are SETTLED, written in stone, one of those is the separation of church and state. To even bring that up is to be a fool of the absolute highest caliber. And to top it all off the goon squad led by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News has been trying to actually defend O'Donnel. They are going with the statement that she meant that the exact words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, which is also an argument of astronomical stupidity.

If you want to be a fiscal conservative, go for it, I don't give a shit. But if you are in Delaware do not vote for this woman, she is stupider than a box of rocks, but will have incredible power. We don't hand mentally retarded people hand grenades, and we shouldn't hand them a Senate seat.

>>1922444
Are you even trying? you are a real shitty troll!
-1/100000

I''l help you out...
Try an think of somthing "believable" then post again. If you just keep taking nonsense no one will take you seriously.

>>1922452
slightly better, but still pretty bad
0/100000

pic related to your trolling

>>1922460
are you retarded?

>>1922464
Liberals are not welcome on /sci/. Please leave.

No way in fuck am I voting Democrat just because this is a poor example of a Republican. Liberals can suck my cock (though 99% of them would enjoy that, so never mind).

>>1922469
>>1922471
>Implying 4chan isnt 90% liberals

>>1922469
>>1922471
>>1922472
Samefag

>>1922475
sure, if you're talking about /b/. /sci/ is generally smarter.

>>1922475

>implying it is

>>1922481
try again, liberalfag.

evolution will bring down your dumbass church

Stop bumping troll threads with troll images and start reporting them!

>>1922482
>implying most scientists arent liberal

>>1922491

>implying they are

>>1922488
>>1922482
>>1922471

thats the spirit! way to step up your troll game faggot! Good job! I knew you could do it!

>>1922491
The only reason many scientist turn liberal is that they have to suck the government's cock for a living.

>>1922494
You were on a roll there troll, but you over did it.
YOU NEED TO MAKE THE TROLL "BELIEVABLE"...DURRRRR!

>>1922444

I'm not saying that Coons would make a great senator. He seems a bit slow, and a bit too much like a liberal douche for me. But GODDAMMIT, his opponent is dumber than shit. I am serious when I say I have never heard anyone trying for a job know so little about said job.

Most people trying to be chemists know what an atom is.
Most people trying to be mathematicians know how to multiply.
Most people running for office in the US know the Constitution. This woman isn't one of them.

>>1922496
fuck off troll

>>1922501

>disagrees with poster

HURR POSTER IS OBVIOUS TROLL NO BOUT A DOUBT IT.

>>1922500
the reason many scienists are liberal, as well as most of the college educated....is...

liberal = smart people, thinkers
conservative = old dumb fucks afraid of change

Do you not know US politics? DURRRRR

>>1922502
All I know of her is from the debate. And she seemed smarter than him and better informed in the debate. I didn't see anything about her not knowing about the Constitution in the debate... but CNN pulled away to show miners getting pulled out of a hole.

If she said "show me where in the Constitution is does it require the separation of church and state" that is a very valid comment. People who think the phrase "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution are the ones who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

>>1922520
lol fuck off troll.

>>1922520

Check 'at troll.

>>1922500

Check 'em dubs.

>>1922521
> she seemed smarter than him and better informed in the debate

i just fucking told you how to troll! And yet you still put this nonsense!

TRY HARDER!

>>1922537
and I told you to fuck off.

>>1922365
>Italains

Yeah, because O'Donnell is definitely an Italian surname.

>>1922531
>>1922521
0/10

ITT: Trolls implying trolls are trolling trolls implying trolls are trolling trolls implying trolls are trolling trolls implying trolls are trolling trolls implying trolls are trolling trolls implying trolls are trolling trolls implying trolls are trolling trolls implying trolls are trolling trolls implying trolls are trolling trolls.

>>1922521
There's that part in the First Amendment that says the government shall not infringe upon one's right to practice religion freely. If the government favors one religion, then they are, by default, infringing upon other religions. Infringing upon religions = infringing upon people's right to practice said religions. Thus, we deduce the separation of church and state.

We've known this for years, bro. This isn't quite a new thing.

>>1922552
> i have no rational argument. i better accuse everyone else of trolling.

>>1922541
aww....poor little guy is getting angry, maybe you need a nap. Im sure if you try just alittle harder you might be a good troll.

You really thought you could post all the bullshit and expect people to think you are that stupid? No, you come off an a obvious troll.

>>1922561
LOL, what do you mean "we've known this for years"? When exactly was this discovered? LMAO. No, I'm not saying the government should try to favor certain religions, just that what you said is kind of retarded. The 1st amendment says, if memory serves, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof."

>>1922575
fuck off

>>1922575

>>1922521
Wow, so you never took any kind of politics course?

Do you like talking out of your ass, and spreading nonsense? You must love the Glenn Beck, amirite?

>>1922596
Anit Beck Thread
OHH YEAH

>>1922577
By "we've known this for years", I mean the people running the government have known since day 1 that church and state shouldn't be together. Hell, Jefferson coined the term "separation of church and state". We've practicing this in our government for centuries.

I looked it up, the first clause is specifically called the "establishment clause of the First Amendment". It is agreed upon by United States law to prohibit the government from favoring one religion over the other (see >>1922561)

Beck can suck my fat cock!

>>1922613
been practicing, sry

here's a nice little evolutionary infographic I just whipped up for everybody

>>1922624
Hey, how long is a ma? I've never seen that before.

Reading her quotes makes me want to cry. I thought we had advanced as a society enough not to let people like this live without a caretaker, let alone run for government office.

>>1922613
It is nobel that you are trying to make your point. However >>1922521
is literally a fucking retard or Troll, and possesses little if reasoning ability.

He actually thought she sounded "smart".....commmon....LMAO

>>1922643
It's funny because you're calling someone using basic logic an idiot.

>>1922639
mya (unit), sometimes written as Ma, means "millions of years ago" or megaannum.

from wikipedia

>>1922661
Thanks, man.

someone please save that pic of odonnell, print it out, cover it in your juices, and then photo with timestamp

in return, science

Since I can't observe God, can I call him "only a theory"?

I should use that one on a jesusfreak

We now see the devastating effects of trisomy 21

>>1922596
I guarantee I know more about the Constitution, its history, and the case law based on it over the last 200 years than you will ever acquire in your lifetime. The phrase "separation of church and state" isn't fucking in it.

>>1922657
just wow man.....you keep trying and keep failing

>>1922676
Nope, god is less then a theory

theory = science
fairtale = religion

>>1922613
>It is agreed upon by United States law to prohibit the government from favoring one religion over the other
Another one of these strange fucking sentences that means god-knows what. The establishment clause says what it means and means what it says.

>>1922642
They are not her quotes, you fucking idiot. They are made up to be funny. Fucking liberals will believe anything.

>>1922709
like evolution

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

>>1922613
If by United States law, you mean US code, or statutory law, such cannot change the meaning of the Constitution, the Constitution governs such law. The role of the judiciary is to apply the constitution and laws made under it to cases brought before it. If the laws made under it run afoul of the constitution under whose authority they were enacted, then the judiciary can consider them unenforceable for that reason.

>>1922726
That's right, that letter, not the constitution is the origin of the phrase.

>>1922686
No one said it was. However, it is common knowledge that the 1st ad clearly expresses "seperation between church and state". This is not up for fucking debate, it is pretty clear.

Why is that so fucking hard to understand? DAMM, did you never take history? politics? Even in high school? Did you just not pay attention?

GTFO and educate yourself, so you dont sound like a dumbass! You are the fucking plauge of this country, dumbfucks making up shit and screwing up everything for everyone else!
DIE A PAINFUL FUCKING DEATH!

Any of you religious trolls ever consider that half of the reason why the founders wanted separation of church and state was to protect the church from government control and corruption like they had in England at the time?

Because that had a fuck-ton to do with it.

Separation of church and state not only keeps religion out of government, but government out of religion. You really want to pay a tax to attend church like they do in Germany? Yeah, didn't think so.

>>1922740
>I'm going to substitute my phrase for the phrase that's actually in the constitution and claim that it's common knowledge that the phrase in the constitution is really supposed to be my phrase and i ain't even trollin'.

>>1922793
I have no problem with the separation of church and state. I'm just trying to tell these overemotional teenagers that the phrase doesn't come from the constitution. And also that when it comes to interpreting the constitution, you need to start with the words that are in the constitution.

>>1922803
Which gets back to my point that Coons was basically flat out saying that the Constitution as ratified and amended by the people shouldn't matter -- that whatever made up shit the judiciary wants to interpret into the Constitution is what should matter because that made up shit is so important and people depend on it to have their abortions. Well, fuck Coons. If the people want abortion to be legal then make that the fucking law through the democratic process via statutory law or constitutional amendment. Assholes like Coons have no place in government, when they don't appreciate how non-representative governmental entities shouldn't be deciding the laws for the people.

>>1922796

Yeah, the constituition doenst use the phrase "dont murder people", and I am too dumb (JUST LIKE YOU) to comprehend anything that isnt spelled out exactly.

I Never paid any attention in school, so I cant analyze shit!

SO I GUESS MURDER IS FINE! HORRY! IM COMING TO KILL YOU SOON FAGGOT!

>>1922803
Ahem
"act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

This is the interpretation of the constitution made by one of the dudes who wrote it.

If he didn't know how to interpret his own constitution who else would?

THOMAS JEFFERSON clearly expresses in that quote that separation of church/state was implied with the first ammendment.

>>1922828
Anti abortionist in my /sci/?
WTF?

JUST GTFO!

evolution is actually a fact, it's quite clear that species change from generation to generation, the theory of evolution, however, is a theory.

>>1922831
You have proved your point.

O'Donnell supporter status
[ ] - NOT TOLD
[X] - FUCKING TOLD

>>1922831
HHHHUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

The constitution is an enumeration of the limitation of powers of the government, not the ten commandments.

It simply lists government's restrictions on the most important rights they could think of at the time, but amendment 9 specifically states that we have more rights than what are listed, and therefore just because something isn't specifically listed in the constitution, doesn't mean it's not a right.

But it's definitely not a list of dos and don'ts.

>>1922831
Are you a troll or are you really that stupid? There's nothing about murder in the Constitution. That's not what the Constitution is for. Constitution is outlawed by state laws, and in some special cases federal statutory law.

>>1922837
Yes, I agree that that is a reasonable characterization of the first amendment. But 1) TJ didn't write the 1st amendment, 2) One persons reasonable characterization is just one person's reasonable characterization. It's not the thing itself.

>>1922842
It doesn't matter if you're an abortionist or antiabortionist. If you believe at all in democracy or republicanism, you should be against judicial legislation like roe v wade. If you're a radical abortionist you should be for a constitutional amendment for it. Whatever power can be used for you with no checks and balances can be used against you with no checks and balances. Only a fool would support such power just because it's being used for something you want at the start.

>>1922867
Are you shitting me?
The first ad actually says not to kill people.
You really need to go back to grade shool faggot.

Wow, you missed the fucking point entirely. While it is in the constitution not to kill people, they dont phrase it as "dont murder people". Smart people, know how to use the fucking english language and analyze sentances and figure out what they mean or imply. For most things in the consitution this is fucking trival.

This like "dont murder" as well as "seperation of church and state", may not be worded as such in the first admendment, but can be made out by anyone who fucking knows english. It is really fucking trival.

>>1922907
You are a complete and total idiot. Murder is nowhere in the constitution. The constitution enumerates the powers and limitations of power of the government. It establishes no criminal law whatsoever, fucking imbecile.

>>1922919
Sorry, I ment to say the fifth amendment
In anycase, how did it feel to fail basic US history in high school?

From 5th ad
"....nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Hence you cannot just go kill people.
ITS IN THERE YOU FUCKING RETARD!
You really need to learn how to read!

>>1922919

Retard status
[X] - FUCKING TOLD TWICE ALREADY
[X] - CRYING TO HIS MOMMY

>>1922968

The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment only applies to the federal government. The DPC of the 14th Amendment applies to the state governments.

Either way, the 5th and 14th Amendments are restrictions on the government, not on private citizens. Very little in the Constitution applies to private actors, except for the 13th Amendment - you, as a private citizen, cannot own slaves.

Now, as for murder and the Constitution, the main thing is that the Constitution is NOT the only source of law in America! We have statutes! We have case law! The Constitution DEFINES and LIMITS the GOVERNMENT. It does not say anything about private actors committing larceny or defaming other people or committing murder.

>>1922828

Too bad the Supreme Court was created by the Constitution and, as the final court of appeals, they get to make the law, if they so choose.

BAWWWWWWWW IT HURTS MY BUTT WHEN LAWS I DON'T LIKE ARE MADE

Move to a country without a common law tradition if judge-made law chafes your ass so much.

>>1922828

She's trailing by a huge margin in the polls. Voters aren't that mad at Obama.

imo, evolution IS just a theory, but unlike christfags (don't worry, I call myself antifag all the time and I don't mind christians, I just enjoy kicking their asses in science), we have scientific evidence backing it up, rather than books saying "God did it...". We also have proved like half of the books wrong, through radiocarbon dating of the original scriptures, that dated to 400-500 A.D., 400-500 years after they should've been written. So Atheistfags:1, Christfags:0??? I've also heard the theory that we're all a computer program, because every single thing in the universe is limited, and can be perfectly represented in binary (although it would take hella time). Look it up, I don't want to type anymore.

>>1923106

Its a theory in a scientific sense, not by dictionary definition. Scientific theory are set up so that they are falsifiable, "theory of intelligent design" is not.

>>1923106

High schooler detected, evolution is a fact, the means by which it happens is a strong theory.

Which is basically true until proven otherwise, so basically the "theory" that elements are made of atoms is true until proven otherwise.

>>1923124
Where do you guys acquire this information? Is /sci/ reading a general science periodical that addresses issues like evolution and abortion from a rational perspective?

Yah, I know that scientific theories are falsifiable, but they have evidence that give or take add to the realism, rather than in storybook form.

"This happened this way" - Bible

"This could've happened because this says it was possible and that also said it was possible, and these say something along those lines happened. However, this says that that all could not have happened that way." - Confusing yet intriguing Science.

I just chose Scientology over Christianity because I always ask "Why?" and don't just accept "Because this ancient scripture said so."

So Antifags:1, Christfags:0?

>>1923160
>scientology

>>1922543
Her Wikipedia Bio says "of Italian descent."

FUCK YOU CHRISTFAGS

FUCK YOU BIBLE

FUCK YOU JESUS GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH A CROSS

no seriously when I see so many people worshipping some religion, in XXI century, IN MY FUCKING XXI century, I just don't want to be a human, just want to be a creature of some other race to have nothing in common with all these people.

>>1922968
HOLY FUCK YOU ARE A FUCKING IMBECILE. THE 5TH AMENDMENT IS A LIMITATION ON THE POWERS OF THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT, NOT CRIMINAL LAW. YOU FUCKING HARE BRAIN.

>>1923047
>Too bad the Supreme Court was created by the Constitution and, as the final court of appeals, they get to make the law, if they so choose.
I don't think you understand what a court of appeals is if you think they legitimately get to make new laws. A court of appeals is where the application of the existing laws to a case are tested.

In commonlaw countries it is actually the other way around where there is a system of common law that is created by judicial decisions.

lol
she substituted for bozo the clown

>>1922278
It's quite simple. Evolution n is an undeniable FACT.

NATURAL SELECTION is the best scientifically supportable THEORY that currently explains the driving forces behind EVOLUTION.

Even Microbes EVOLVE. That's why antibiotics are becoming less and less effective.

Drop your blind dogmatic sheep like following of a fictional document assembled by committee 300 years after the supposed events took place. Grow some neurons, develop independent thought.

>>1923119
Intelligent design is a scientific theory. You could falsify it by creating a computer simulation that showed that it was possible for the claimed "irreducibly complex" system to form in an environment only from random mutations and natural selection. Computer power isn't there yet, but this should one day be practically testable. The theory that evolution could have taken place by that mechanism -- by random mutation and natural selection -- will be testable at the same time. That mechanism is usually implied by the term "evolution", so "evolution" will be testable at the same time that ID is testable.

>>1923242
Evolution (the common descent of the species) is a THEORY (a well-proven hypothesis). It is not directly observable. The existence of X, Y, and Z fossils, and the genome layouts and chromozomes of various animals are all FACTS. That evolution of the species happened through natural selection is a CONJECTURE (an unfalsifiable explanation).

>>1923251
Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory because it is supported by exactly NO evidence. Theories are heavily supported. For all intents and purposes, theory = fact. The only reason we say theory instead of fact is that scientists (wisely) realize that new discoveries may refute our conclusions and if we said BLAH BLAH OUR FACTS WERE WRONG, we'd look like giant assholes.

>>1922278
Evolution is a FACT. It has been observed again and again.

Natural selection is the best current scientific theory to explain it.

Intelligent Design is a dogmatic attempt to impose a judeo-christian creation myth on a secular world, supplanting true science. It is not Science, it is Dogma in a cheap suit.

>>1923251
>Intelligent design is a scientific theory.

No. its creationism renamed so they could try to force it into public schools, and this was so obvious that it utterly failed in court. EVEN WITH CONSERVATIVE JUDGES RULING OVER IT.

Since its creationism, its very CORE concept is FAITH. which is as anti-scientific as you can possibly get.

I ... I ...

That's for fun, she don't even remotely say (or worse, think) those quote, right ? Right ?

What can she become, exactly ? ... (Frenchfag here, don't know (and don't give a shit) american politics, but THAT, that's fascinating ... and terrifying, i mean, stupid AND religious extremist ? She's just smart and just want to manipulate the masses ? )

>>1923265
Intelligent Design is supported by as many facts as Natural Selection being the the driving force behind evolution. i.e. none. They are both explanations which may one day be testable but aren't now, so to be generous, they should be be called hypotheses.

i have a theory that god made a black hole (so there would be no evidence if he made a mistake) and it was so powerful he didn't escape it then kept excellerating faster and faster compressing smaller and smaller becoming more massive as he starts going faster in time... get to the end of time and bounces backwards in time colliding this now "god partical"into a past version of it'se;f, making the big bang happen at all these different time (explaining parrelell universes ) So we now have no god yet we were all made by him.

THERE is your intelligent design.. prove that one any more wrong than any religion.

CAPTCHA: harrons ground

>>1923288
>>1923288

The downside to democracy.... any fucking retard can run for office...if there's enough retarded people supporting her, she'll win. The latter being a problem unique to America.

But no, the quotes are fake. But it illustrates her stupidity flawlessly.

>>1923270
Intelligent design is the hypothesis based on the observation that certain biological structures appear to be irreducibly complex, that some "intelligent design" had to be behind their evolution. It is perhaps religiously motivated, but only seriously unhinged left-wingers try to claim it is creationism.

>>1923293
Natural selection is supported by at least SOME evidence. See: peppered moths.

>>1923301
"I don't understand it, so a wizard did it" is dangerously medieval.

>>1923288
You are correct, she did not say those things. No go protest and strike for more free retirement money so you can be like Greece.

>>1923293

>Intelligent Design is supported by as many facts as Natural Selection being the the driving force behind evolution. i.e. none.
>natural selection
>no evidence

.0/10

>>1923301
>but only seriously unhinged left-wingers try to claim it is creationism.


haha no. This is a recorded fact, Your not gonna to believe any links I post, so google it yourself.

>>1923308
It's not saying it's intelligent because it's not understandable, but because it's irreducibly complex. True, maybe it's not irreducible, and we just haven't figured how how it's reducible. If we found a way to reduce all the example, ID would be falsified, and thus it is a valid hypothesis. I genuinely look forward to the day when we can simulate biological evolution on computers, because I'd like to know the real answer rather than adhering to one dogma or the other.

In the same manner gravity is just a theory. Consistently and thoroughly observed empirical phenomenon. Just because you can't directly feel evolution doesn't mean the evidence for it is any weaker.

"But hurr no one knows how gravity works either durr." No, they don't. There are also aspects of evolution that are unknown. But the fact that is occurs is just that - a fact - as undeniable as the fact that you owe the Earth 4 and some GJ of energy, and it's more than happy to try and break your legs for it.

>>1923312
I don't have to google it, I've read articles by ID proponents; I know exactly what it was.

The Dover case was extremely poorly argued, btw. Better lawyers would have yielded a better result for the school district.

>>1923301
To prove something scientifically requires 2 things:
- The proposition is supported by evidence in the natural world
- The proposition is falsifiable, aka there exists the possibility, the conceivability, of obtaining falsifying evidence in the natural world.

Intelligent design is not falsifiable, so it is not science.

The old way of thinking before science was that if something was beyond comprehension, if one couldn't conceive of a natural predictable process to describe observation, then a wizard did it. For the sun, it was a dude named Apollo on a chariot pulling a big ball of fire. Thunder was when a dude named Thor threw his hammer. See the pattern?

Intelligent design is not science.

>>1923251
LMAO....no.

Intellegent Design is a scientific theory, in the same sense that "a small teapot with a gnome in it, orbiting the sun" is a scientifc theory...lol

YOU CANNOT JUST MAKE UP RANDOM BULLSHIT THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN OR DISPORVEN,"YET", AND CALL IT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY!

Somthing needs actual evidence to be a scientifc theory, intellegence design has none. Intellegent design is not taught or mentioned at any credible university, scientific community, organization, publication, meetings, proceedings, etc. Intellegent design is simply a farse.

The only place Intellegent design is ever mentioned is some southern grade schools. And that is only becuase dumb ass republican parents bitch about it.

Another reason republicans can choke on a fucking cock!

>>1923330
Read the Wedge strategy. It proves that creationism = ID.

http://www.sunflower.com/~jkrebs/JCCC/05%20Wedge_edited.pdf

>>1923303
Yes, we know that natural selection HAPPENS. But natural selection as the mechanism of major changes, as opposed to changes for the most part within the initial spectrum of variation, is what there is no evidence for. Just a lot of detailed speculation. I'm talking about questions of where new organs and systems of organs come from as opposed to what color something is or how long or short something is. The hypothesis is that they are both caused the same way. It's just not provable yet that this is even possible, and it is exactly this that ID claims is inherently impossible, since some cellular mechanism are irreducibly complex.

An intelligent person would look at the problem and conclude that we don't have enough information to say. Unfortunately it has become political, and politics makes people morons. I submit this thread as evidence.

>>1923251
Falsifiable does not mean what you think it means. In science, it is standard well accepted practice to admit when one does not know. Not knowing how something happens does not require that a wizard did it. See: >>1923331

Finding evidence that supports evolution by natural selection, such as your computer simulation, is not falsifying evidence of intelligent design.

For example, it's quite possible to have two different theories describing the same thing and both scientifically correct, such as standard quantum theory and string theory. Proving one theory does not disprove another. Falsifying evidence requires evidence that contradicts a prediction, and intelligent design makes no predictions, so it is not science.

>>1923331
Intelligent design is based on the observation in the natural world that certain cellular systems are apparently irreducibly complex.

Intelligent design would be easily falsified by a computer simulation that produced the same or similar systems through an environment of random mutation and natural selection.

By your criteria, ID is indeed a valid scientific hypothesis.

>>1922278
Saying something is so apparently irreducibly complex, it must have been the work of a creator, is resigning yourself to seeking no further knowledge and settling for what we know now. This is what happened in the Dark Ages. The church has a lot to answer for there.

Evolution has been observed many times in current history. Peppered moths during the Industrial Revolution in the UK. Bacterial diseases have evolved to a point where the strongest antibiotics on the planet now no longer work against some of them.

The fossil record provides an increasing body of evidence to show the same process of change and evolution throughout the ages.

The most often raised example of irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum. Guess what? http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Another oft-used example is the human eye. Do your research
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1736

Your arguments are fellatious, based on dogma and the inerrancy of a work of fiction assembled by a misogynistic committee in the 3rd Century.

>>1923356
>An intelligent person would look at the problem and conclude that we don't have enough information to say. Unfortunately it has become political, and politics makes people morons. I submit this thread as evidence.

So, because lots of people believe in various religions, that automatically gives the idea scientific credence? Oh wait, let's try a less inflamatory idea. Just because lots of people used to think that thunder was when Thor threw his hammer does not give the Thor theory of thunder any scientific credence.

>>1923343
Creationism isn't mentioned in the document. It says that ID is a way of challenging materialism. But that should be obvious.

>>1923383
To further: science is not a popularity game, nor are people intelligent. Scientific correctness has little to do with popular.

>>1923383
I never implied that the popularity of an idea should give it credence. I'm not sure how you got that from me saying that we don't yet have enough information to know what is possible and what isn't, as a mechanism for macroevolution.

>>1923387
Tell that to Al Gore. I agree with you. I never suggested otherwise.

>>1923356
>Thinks ID is some legit scientific theory

You must be trolling nigger. Just go to any university and ask about ID, and watch them LAUGH AT YOUR FUCKING FACE!

>>1923394
>An intelligent person would look at the problem and conclude that we don't have enough information to say. Unfortunately it has become political, and politics makes people morons. I submit this thread as evidence.

Yes. It has become political. It has become a battle of religious idealogues and idiots versus rational scientists making scientifically upheld claims.

You strike me as someone who has never read descriptions of how an eye might evolve from nothing, as a particularly unimaginative person who has never bothered to actually learn what evolution is all about. I would suggest reading "Climbing Mt. Improbable" and "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins.

>>1923407
You fascist, all idea are equal and must be listened ... Shit, i can't, even for (trying) to troll.

>>1923386
>Creationism isn't mentioned in the document. It says that ID is a way of challenging materialism. But that should be obvious.

Thats.The.whole.point.

The ENTIRE point was to re-brand their religions beliefs it as something new that they could sneak into the public school system, which would of violated the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Intelligent design. Its CLEARLY based off of religion and not science, fuck read their goals, the entire point is religious, not scientific.

>>1923417
Ok for that, but right now, that's still in school ?
No right ?

>>1923370
please see:
>>1923364

Again, proof of theory A is not falsifying evidence for theory B. It is not. The only kind of evidence which is falsifying evidence for theory B is evidence which contradicts a prediction of B. Intelligent design makes no positive falsifiable predictions, so it is not science.

No, saying "All other theories are wrong besides the unobservable" does not count.

>>1923356
Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank —believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents",

>>1923415
No. All ideas are not equal. For example, human rights good, slavery bad. Equality between the sexes good, oppression of women bad. Some value systems and ideas are better than others.

However, suppression of ideas is generally bad. The aesop of free speech is that by allowing all ideas to be openly discussed, only the good ones will remain.

Finally, schools are not an exercise of free speech or research. Students go to school to learn. As such, one should not give equal time to the stork theory of human reproduction and the sex theory of human reproduction. Nor should you give equal time between the bogus ID theory and the scientifically sound theory of evolution by natural selection.

>>1923421
In some dumshit southern states (republican), yes. It is in there science books. It is fucking sad!

>>1923417

>which would of violated the First Amendment of the Constitution.
>which would of violated
>would of

>>1923429
Woaw, when i try to troll but give up mid-way it actually work !
But that's not intended, so that's don't count ... Snif

But seriously, why it even have been in a school ?
Ok free speech etc, but SERIOUSLY.

>>1923432
Indeed ...
I really don't want to facepalm, that's just very sad ...
(ok i still facepalm)

>>1923441
>But seriously, why it even have been in a school ?
>Ok free speech etc, but SERIOUSLY.
Please be more specific. I am not following.

>>1923441
DUMB ASS BIBLE THUMPING REPUBLICANS....DURRRRR

>>1923374
>Saying something is so apparently irreducibly complex, it must have been the work of a creator, is resigning yourself to seeking no further knowledge and settling for what we know now.
On the contrary, you'll notice that I am anxious for further explanation, and proof as to whether it is really irreducibly complex or not. And if it is irreducibly complex, I am interesting in pursuing the science of how it DID evolve, by what mechanism does this design evolve, if not natural selection. There are limitless questions to be explored, and that is the proper role of science.

>This is what happened in the Dark Ages. The church has a lot to answer for there.
I don't think you understand much about the dark ages. Out of Europe of the dark ages arose modern science.

>Evolution has been observed many times in current history. Peppered moths during the Industrial Revolution in the UK. Bacterial diseases have evolved to a point where the strongest antibiotics on the planet now no longer work against some of them.
No one denies these things.

>The fossil record provides an increasing body of evidence to show the same process of change and evolution throughout the ages.
The fossil record doesn't specify whether it is the same process or a different process as the one, for example in the speckled moth.

>The most often raised example of irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum. Guess what?...
I'm aware of the arguments for and against irreducible complexity. Neither side has a completely compelling argument. The biggest problem with claiming that such things can arise incrementally is that despite years of trying, we've been unable to simulate anything like in software. I happen to be an expert in genetic software algorithms, so I know the limitations there.

...continued...
>Your arguments are fellatious, based on dogma and the inerrancy of a work of fiction assembled by a misogynistic committee in the 3rd Century.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean fallacious. My arguments are based on my own thoughts as to the possible mechanisms of evolution. They are the basis of precisely the rejection of dogma from all sides. Your backhanded reference to the canonization and inerrancy of the New Testament is ridiculous and irrelevant. I neither believe the New Testament is inerrant, nor does it address the irreducible complexity of cells. Nor do I think you have enough information to adduce the misogyny of the bishops appointed to formalize the christian canon.

>>1923464
Orly? Cool. What languages do you use? Smug lisp weenie? Do you focus exclusively on genetic algorithms, or do you play around with evolutionary algorithms as well?

>>1923464
>No one denies evolution.

I'd hate to break it to you, but yes, there are people who ardently deny that evolution, in any form, has ever occurred.

>>1923407
I didn't claim it was a fashionable belief, only a valid hypothesis. Learn to know the difference.

>>1923475
No one denies those specific instances of evolution. There are people who deny macroevolution (who are stupid for doing so, I fully admit), but they do not deny those examples of microevolution.

>>1923448
Well, you know ... Before learning something that supposed to be scientific ...
The scientific community have to approve that thing to be valid (it can be wrong, but that's the minimum) ...
And until that, well ... under what subject can it be teached ... History ? To soon ... Litterature ? To children ?

So ... Well, SERIOUSLY, still ...

>>1923464
I'm going to say it again.

Thus far, the ID lobby has "found" numerous examples of irreducible complexity. Each one has been debunked, and its likely evolutionary path has been shown.

If they come up with something new, the argument does not hold. We have an excellent scientific theory which explains a great preponderance of it. We have no known falsifying evidence.

The inability of the theory to explain a particular evolutionary path is not evidence against the theory. The theory is just incomplete.

However, if you could prove using maths and modeling that it's highly improbable for natural selection to have done it, then you do win. However, your inability to find the proper models demonstrates nothing. You would require far far far far far more compelling discussions of all possible models before real scientists will ever entertain this line of argument as scientifically sound.

>>1923483
There actually ARE people (again, strident creationists) who (shockingly) actually claim that the peppered moth example was falsified or somehow fraudulent. I'm not saying it to imply that you are one of them, but just so you are aware.

>>1923487
ID can be taught right alongside the theory that jews are evil and that all human babies come from storks. AKA it should not be taught in school (besides a modern political science course).

Im not understanding this whole idea or irreducibly complex. If something can be reduced, it will be eventually reduced into something that is irreducible. If it is irreducible it already is that thing.

What am I missing.

>>1923417
Discovery Institute is a a religious institute. They're allowed to have religious-based goals. Advocating for the teaching of ID is one of them. Claiming that ID itself is therefore a religious rather than scientific hypothesis is fallacious. It doesn't follow, and it's not true. Suggesting that a hypothesis that challenges materialism must be kept out of schools by law because it challenges materialism is some Orwellian bullshit of the first order. The 1st amendment doesn't even remotely suggest such things.

Im not understanding this whole idea of "irreducibly complex". If something can be reduced, it will be eventually reduced into something that is irreducible. If it is irreducible it already is that thing. So the whole idea of irreducible is self-defeating.

What am I missing.

>>1923507
Any argue that is of the form "We don't know how it happens, so a wizard did it!" is not science. I have said it before and I will say it again - it is not science. It never will be science.

You might be able to prove natural selection is impossible through math and models (highly unlikely), but you can never scientifically prove ID.

>>1923513
Irreducible complexity is the idea that certain "jumps" were too big to have happened naturally without a designer. Each jump is a quantum. Natural selection jumps are in discrete stages - each change is a change to DNA, a digital media.

>>1923364
You are wrong. ID makes extraordinarily bold predictions. It claims it is IMPOSSIBLE for random mutations and natural selection to produce certain configurations. Hence the word "irreducible". A computer simulation that demonstrated the configurations could be attained that way, would indeed falsify the predictions to the contrary, and invalidate the hypothesis.

>>1923068
This is all I needed to know.

Everything's going to be fine.

>>1923425
The computer simulation would prove that the random mutation + natural selection theory is POSSIBLE. It wouldn't prove it happened that way, but in proving it possible, it would FALSIFY the whole irreducible complexity claim.

>>1923521
So, the argument is:
"There is a dude who's really smart and powerful. He made all life. He designed it at the DNA level at least."
This does not imply that natural selection is exceedingly unlikely. Please try again.

You could phrase it as "There's this dude. He designed all life at the level of DNA. Also evolution by natural selection is exceedingly unlikely." Then congrats, you have two separate distinct scientific theories, one of which can be proven, one which cannot.

>>1922278
>she does have a point though. evolution is just a theory. anyone who takes it for fact is a retard

So's Gravity. Go jump off a cliff and see if it turns out to be false.

>>1923519
But thats stupid. How do you define a jump as "too big".

Perhaps the "big jump" was necessary for the species to survive and it had the resources to do it.

>>1923480
valid hypothesis

Nope, a hypothesis is a scientific term. ID is not even a hypothesis. Try harder trollio!

>>1923427
I have no idea what evidence was provided in the Dover case, and neither do you. Basing your arguments on a court case is foolish. ID is a broader idea than that. It is essentially a challenge to the orthodox mechanism for evolution, suggesting that the evidence is incompatible with it, and a different kind of driving force is required. Creationism is the idea that God created all creatures essentially as they are, out of nothing, which is just ignorant. The two explanations have nothing to do with each other.

>>1923556
ID is a scientific hypothesis, because it is a falsifiable explanation for observed events in nature.

I thought that intelligent design meant something designed things the way they are and left them, not that they designed evolutionary changes, which would mean the evolution still exists, while continuing to have no evidence for itself.

ID sounds like a pile of shit.

>>1923532
I'm pretty sure we're agreeing. One can use computer models to very easily add more evidence for evolution by natural selection.

A very very hard task would be to use computer models to prove that evolution by natural selection is implausible statistically. The hard part would be that showing your models cover all possible implementations of evolution by natural selection, an obstacle which I think would be quite difficult to overcome. In a sense, it's a proof by exhaustive example, and there's a lot of possible examples.

Finally, neither of these say a damn thing about ID. ID does not make falsifiable predictions, so it is not a science.

>>1923571
People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis — often called an "educated guess" — because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence
>implying ID is based on evidence.

>>1922320
oh god don't throw this in with the rest.

>>1923574

One can also use a computer model to simulate the whole world. How would we do that? We need to first understand how the world works first.

>>1923464
No really sir. I'm curious where this is going. I have several degrees in the subject as well. I assume you're using Lisp. Which variant? Which implementation? Are you focusing on genetic algorithms only, or are you also putting some effort into generic evolutionary algorithms?

What do you think about the emergence of eukaryote cells? Do you accept appealing to the anthropic principle for that? For the origin of life? For the origin of mitochondria organelles?

>>1922325
>The similarities between the DNA many animals should be enough, for fuck's sake.
>implying gradual morphological change trends in geologic strata were not more than enough in the first place

>>1923590

Ignore the redundancy in the last sentence.

>>1923562
Yes, ID and natural selection are competing ideas. One is a scientific hypothesis. One is not. ID makes no falsifiable claims, so it is not science.

>>1923474
These days mostly Java. I do all sorts of machine learning and pattern recognition stuff, more neural networks than anything else.

>>1923562
LMAO....

published scientifici papers in support of evolution = fucking thousands

published scientifc papers on Intellgent design = 0

INTELLEGENT DESIGN IS NOT FUCKING SCIENCE!

Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence.

Intelligent design proponents are "arguments from ignorance". In the "argument from ignorance", a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Intelligent design is an "argument from ignorance" because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. Most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science.

>>1923618
That doesn't sound very much like cutting edge modeling of natural selection. In fact, that doesn't sound like modeling natural selection at all.

I can only assume you're referring to papers from researchers who are modeling natural selection. Can you quote any?

>>1923620
>arguments from ignorance
It's much funnier and demeaning if you say "I don't know, thus a wizard did it!"

>>1923591
>For the origin of mitochondria organelles?
since you are an expert I hate quoting wikipedia but the endosymbiotic theory and the molecular evidence supporting similarity with (endosymbiotic parasite) proteobacteria doesn't satisfy your reason?

>>1923490
>Thus far, the ID lobby has "found" numerous examples of irreducible complexity. Each one has been debunked, and its likely evolutionary path has been shown.
"Debunked" is just a subjective siding with the opinion that a certain path would be possible. The other opinion is that that path is not possible (or realistically probable). Like you suggested, without a computable model, neither side can be "debunked".

>We have an excellent scientific theory which explains a great preponderance of it. We have no known falsifying evidence.
Because it's not falsifiable!

>However, if you could prove using maths and modeling that it's highly improbable for natural selection to have done it, then you do win. However, your inability to find the proper models demonstrates nothing.
The inability to find computable models demonstrates one thing... that neither explanations are falsifiable, and proponents of either are taking a side based on their preference for materialism or non-materialism.

>>1923647
> >We have an excellent scientific theory which explains a great preponderance of it. We have no known falsifying evidence.
>Because it's not falsifiable!
Hmm... Interesting point. A fossilized rabbit in the pre-cambrian is falsifying evidence for evolution as a whole, but it's not for natural selection.

I guess if you found an example of irreducible complexity and somehow proved that it was irreducible, but that's exceedingly difficult, but that also means that finding falsifying evidence for natural election is exceedingly difficult.

I must ponder this.

>>1923513
"Irreducible" means you can't take something away and have it still be functional and beneficial. Therefore, it couldn't have been arrived at through a series of forms that each increased complexity and each was beneficial.

>>1923637
I was just wondering whether he had any models for specifically that event, and how improbable it must have been, and whether we have to appeal to the anthropic principle to explain it.

GUYS I HOPE YOU ARE TROLLING

>>1923624
I'm not modeling natural selection in nature. I'm using genetic algorithms to solve real-world optimization search problems. Thus I have some familiarity with what the process can do in general.

>>1923682
So, you haven't even ran any numbers on the specific problem and are just shooting from the hip.

Nice...

>>1923657
Ok. You almost had me.

Natural selection as the driving force of evolution is falsifiable.

For example, the famous guppy experiments. Put some guppies into some ponds, some with predators, some without. If the guppies in the pond with predators started turning brighter colors, then this would be pretty good evidence against natural selection being the driving force of evolution.

Except that's not what happens.

I can posit any other number of possible experiments or predictions on the fossil record. All bear out natural selection as the main driving force, and no known falsifying evidence exists.

Unlike ID which makes no falsifiable claims.

I am pretty annoyed that the only women that are in any way remarkable in politics right now are fucking stupid bimbo bitches whose whole campaigns is about them being stupid bimbo bitches.

>>1923591
>my focus is actually neural networks, so most of my evolutionary algorithm work has been in neuroevolution.

>What do you think about the emergence of eukaryote cells? Do you accept appealing to the anthropic principle for that? For the origin of life? For the origin of mitochondria organelles?

Every bit of it seems too... "creative" to me for me to reconcile it with the entropic nature of materialism as materialism is commonly understood. The only plausible solution I have thus found, is that there is something intentional underneath all the quantum weirdness that drives things in a very particular directions, towards very particular kinds of forms -- too subtle to easily observe, except the way we observe it, which is over enormous scales. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but that is the only explanation that I can thus far credit.

>>1923731
You do realize that natural selection is the exact opposite of entropy, aka random chance, right?

No offense, but you just lost all credibility with me. I strongly suggest reading Richard Dawkin's "Climbing Mt Improbable" and "The Greatest Show On Earth".

>>1923692
It's not a question of whether natural selection exists, or if it can lead to population changes. It is clearly demonstrated that it can. The question is whether natural selection is the cause of innovations, and complexity changes, such as the development of new organs. This theory is what is not falsifiable.

Or to the degree that you allow natural selection to make naive predictions, it is actually falsified. For example, natural selection would predict that peacocks would not evolve enormous energy-draining feather structures they have to drag around, which compromise their mobility and do not help them survive.

>>1923735
I've read the first one. I well versed in the arguments.

>>1923647
You need to learn what falsified and falsifiable means.
Being falsifiaBLE is one thing, being falsifiED another.
If there ARE evidence that falsifies a theory, that theory is dead.
If a theory is falsifiable but no evidence to falsify it exists, we classify that theory as scientific fact/truth/etc.

>>1923745
>This theory is what is not falsifiable.
Proving irreducible complexity would falsify natural selection.

>>1923761
>You need to learn what falsified and falsifiable means.
No, but you probably do.
>Being falsifiaBLE is one thing, being falsifiED another.
No shit.
>If there ARE evidence that falsifies a theory, that theory is dead.
No shit.
>If a theory is falsifiable but no evidence to falsify it exists, we classify that theory as scientific fact/truth/etc.
No we don't fucktard, we call it a viable theory. GB2highschool.

>>1923773
Yes, the proof and falsifiability of both are intrinsically linked. Neither is currently falsifiable or provable.

>>1923774
>No we don't fucktard, we call it a viable theory. GB2highschool.
Viable theory = Something we regard as fact or truth, you fucking retard.

>>1923780
>Neither is currently falsifiable
I just told you a method of falsifying natural selection, thus it is falsifiable.
And that just one example.
Another would be to find some "wall" in dna mutation making certain mutations impossible, etc.

>>1923781
No it isn't you fucktard. If it were there would be no progress in science. "fact", has a very precise meaning in science, and it has nothing to do with viable theories.

>>1923786
But irreducible complexity is inherently unprovable, therefore it is impossible to falsify natural selection in that manner.

>>1923804
>"fact", has a very precise meaning in science, and it has nothing to do with viable theories.
gb2school kid.

>>1923807
>But irreducible complexity is inherently unprovable
No it isn't.
But that isn't even the only way to falsify NS, plenty of others.

>>1923812
Okay, how could you prove irreducible complexity?

>>1922278
still LMAO....

published scientifici papers in support of evolution = fucking thousands

published scientifc papers on Intellgent design = 0

INTELLEGENT DESIGN IS NOT FUCKING SCIENCE!

see >>1923620

>>1923816
By showing that certain mutations are impossible for example.

>>1923830
ID doesn't claim that certain mutations are impossible.

>>1923819
>make pointless post
>no one cares or responds
>post it again

>>1923839
Complains about a post with tits? Why dude? Why?

>>1923836
ID = "A Wizard did it"

and this isnt religion?.....LOL

\thread

She should do porno. That would seem that, that's the only job she'd be good at.

Im all fucking baked and nodding, and I saw this thread at the top when I got here a few minutes ago...

Decided to post and obviously had to type and retype my post a bunch of times, being all baked and nodding atm...

got about 75% of the way through the final retype...

then Im like:


"holy shit, I just spent a few minutes typing all fucked up, retyping, and thinking... about A FUCKING 'just a geuss' THREAD"


holy shit, I just got trolled... hard. Op wins. Trollage in its most pure form has just occurred:

the simple and subtle manipulation of another person on the internet for the sole purpose of making that person exert effort/time/emotion


>MFW 248 posts and 67 image replies

>MFW this is literally a 10/10 troll thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKbJtebX9Hk
Don't get trolled into not voting for her, Ameribros! SHE IS NOT A WITCH.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mUn2c_PKho