RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+

RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Esinn -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/12/2009 7:43:28 PM)
quote: The fact is we have not been able to scientifically test the theories of the origin of life and many other things (the origin of large organ systems for example). quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave quote: That's because in an exam on evolutionary theory, the facts speak for themselves, they don't need to be twisted and cajoled into making an argument. It is true that evolutionary theory is based on observations. Although, an intelligent design supporter would say the evolution was built into the system. A "naive darvinist" would say: we do not need an intelligent designer. Then an intelligent design scholar would ask how did life (and several other things) originate and discount the darvinist explanation (current hypotheses) as bullcrap. The fact is we have not been able to scientifically test the theories of the origin of life and many other things (the origin of large organ systems for example). Personally, I think, intelligent design hyothesis is worth discussion in every evolutionary course. Beauty of the laws of Nature needs to be recognized by students. As well as the question: where all things came from (from chaos?). Bah.... Pfffftt RNA was just 'made' in a lab about 2-3 weeks ago. It was shown to be a spontaneous creation. If you are going to talk about these type of things you really should keep up to date. It is not a locked deal. But it is very promising. People misunderstand evolution all the time. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe nor does Evolution have anything to do with the creation of life(abiogenesis). Evolution has changed so much since Darwin's day he would barley recognize its accomplishments. We can surely test the theories of life. We do all the time. Chemical Evolution(biology) loves this sort of shit. The field really took off in the 50s. I think I read somewhere it would be over 100 years before we understood origins of life with confidence. It looks like we crushed this record. Abiogenesis is understood very well as well

FuddleDuddle -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/12/2009 7:54:48 PM)
I think the fact that RNA was synthetically created in a lab from non-organic material (if true - has not yet been independently verified) also could make a strong argument for the intelligent design camp. In effect, it demonstrates that intelligence (in this case, a team of biochemists) was necessary in order to produce life. And they were only able to do so in a tightly controlled environment that would probably never have occurred on a primordial Earth. It's also worth noting that ribonucleic acid doesn't constitute life any more than an Intel i7 microprocessor constitutes life. By itself it is completely inert and useless, being only one of many of the necessary components needed to create even a single cell.

DomKen -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/12/2009 8:39:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire The one in Kentucky, according to the report... I follow the creationists pretty closely and I'm pretty sure the only creationism related attraction in trouble is Kent Hovind's down in Pensacola. AiG's in Kentucky is, unfortunately, a big draw. Reliable reports indicate that 250 skeptics touring the place on a summer Friday was not even a majority of the people in the 'museum' at the time.

cornflakegirl -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/12/2009 9:08:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire Just as an aside: I was listening to the radio the other day while driving in to work, and heard that the "Creation Museum" is in receivership... bankrupt. (Finacially... not just intellectually.) Which one? Not Ken's? I was just there with Pz Myers on Friday - heard nothing about it. It was very cool! There were about 250 of us. Ken is a wack job. I had the privileged of publicly insulting him when he came to one of the local churches around here. What a small world. I have an LJ friend who was there as well. It looked like a great time judging by the videos on PZ's site.

awmslave -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/12/2009 11:17:50 PM)
I get lot of criticism unjustly. I guess I was misunderstood. The gaps in evolution theory I mentioned are real. The making RNA in the lab does not mean much. We can put together a small genom in test tube. My argument was basically that Nature is intelligently designed. The only problem why intelligent design theorists are in trouble is the problem with a Designer (God) they need in the picture. The fact that intelligent design ideas have some ground (more than 10% scientists believe it in some form) itself shows the weakness of a traditional Darvinian understanding of the evolution of life on Earth. I am talking about philosophical discussion and not about religious theories based on some simple fantasy belief.

DomKen -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/12/2009 11:25:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave I get lot of criticism unjustly. I guess I was misunderstood. The gaps in evolution theory I mentioned are real. The making RNA in the lab does not mean much. We can put together a small genom in test tube. My argument was basically that Nature is intelligently designed. The only problem why intelligent design theorists are in trouble is the problem with a Designer (God) they need in the picture. The fact that intelligent design ideas have some ground (more than 10% scientists believe it in some form) itself shows the weakness of a traditional Darvinian understanding of the evolution of life on Earth. I am talking about philosophical discussion and not about religious theories based on some simple fantasy belief. You do not have a source, based in reality, for the claim that 10% of scientists support ID. In reality ID is not supported by any statistically detectable percentage of scientists.

awmslave -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 12:05:52 AM)
quote: You do not have a source, based in reality, for the claim that 10% of scientists support ID. In reality ID is not supported by any statistically detectable percentage of scientists. Sorry, I can not find the source but I am sure, I read it somewhere. It was over 10%. Where is your source? Personally, I value the effort to offer alternative theories. Darvinian atheists do not have the right to claim their fantasies have more value.

Arpig -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 6:32:28 AM)
What is a "Darvinian"?

FullCircle -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 6:42:05 AM)
The natural conclusion of a Darwin/DaVinci sex orgy?[8\|]

cornflakegirl -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 6:54:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave Personally, I value the effort to offer alternative theories. Darvinian atheists do not have the right to claim their fantasies have more value. You seem to lack an understanding of the scientific method. Most people do, it's not taught well at all. Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Where is the observable, empirical and measurable evidence for ID? There isn't any. I know you want to see it. I know it seems to be nonsensical that evolution which includes an element of the random could give rise to so many functional species. But here's the thing: Humans evolved to see patterns and find meaning in the world around them. Finding patterns in the world has allowed humans to survive, to use our brains to find food and know what time of year to move our families from the northern caves to the southern plains. Our brains have become excellent at ferreting out that sort of information, and in the process, they have also excelled at finding patterns and meaning where there are none. It gives me a bit of a laugh that evolution gave rise to brain that works in a way that makes it very difficult to accept evolution. Anyway, the whole point is the scientific method. By using the scientific method, there is no particular affection for or attachment to a given idea. When new information comes to light, it is integrated with current information, adding to or correcting our previous understanding. Examine the claims of proponents of ID. Do they ever give us new information? Or do they appeal to your evolved pattern finding brain, insisting on supporting ideas with no factual justification?

DomKen -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 7:00:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave quote: You do not have a source, based in reality, for the claim that 10% of scientists support ID. In reality ID is not supported by any statistically detectable percentage of scientists. Sorry, I can not find the source but I am sure, I read it somewhere. It was over 10%. Where is your source? Personally, I value the effort to offer alternative theories. Darvinian atheists do not have the right to claim their fantasies have more value. An older poll http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/ohio-scientists-intelligent-design-poll Recent poll of Texas science professors http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=2008BiologyReport Survey of biology department heads http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/teach-controversy.html There is no debate in the scientific community, the theory of evolution is the only viable explanation for the diversity of life and is the single organizing theory of biology. ID is not scientific and has not a single bit of actual supporting evidence.

NihilusZero -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 9:09:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cornflakegirl You seem to lack an understanding of the scientific method. Most people do, it's not taught well at all. Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Where is the observable, empirical and measurable evidence for ID? There isn't any. I know you want to see it. I know it seems to be nonsensical that evolution which includes an element of the random could give rise to so many functional species. But here's the thing: Humans evolved to see patterns and find meaning in the world around them. Finding patterns in the world has allowed humans to survive, to use our brains to find food and know what time of year to move our families from the northern caves to the southern plains. Our brains have become excellent at ferreting out that sort of information, and in the process, they have also excelled at finding patterns and meaning where there are none. It gives me a bit of a laugh that evolution gave rise to brain that works in a way that makes it very difficult to accept evolution. Anyway, the whole point is the scientific method. By using the scientific method, there is no particular affection for or attachment to a given idea. When new information comes to light, it is integrated with current information, adding to or correcting our previous understanding. Examine the claims of proponents of ID. Do they ever give us new information? Or do they appeal to your evolved pattern finding brain, insisting on supporting ideas with no factual justification? 20 points.

Apocalypso -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 9:15:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave Personally, I value the effort to offer alternative theories. The common usage of "theory" is not the same thing as a scientific theory. Same word, used differently. The fact that ID proponents like yourself seemingly are unaware of that fact is a very good illustration of why ID is such a subject for mockery. quote: I am talking about philosophical discussion Category mistake. You might as well use Brecht's theatrical theories to look at evolution for all the good it will do you. (Although I will mischeviously point out that those atheists who follow the "mythical Jesus" snake oil peddlers show a similar ignorance of the (ancient) historical method).

Esinn -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 10:51:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave I get lot of criticism unjustly. I guess I was misunderstood. The gaps in evolution theory I mentioned are real. The making RNA in the lab does not mean much. We can put together a small genom in test tube. My argument was basically that Nature is intelligently designed. The only problem why intelligent design theorists are in trouble is the problem with a Designer (God) they need in the picture. The fact that intelligent design ideas have some ground (more than 10% scientists believe it in some form) itself shows the weakness of a traditional Darvinian understanding of the evolution of life on Earth. I am talking about philosophical discussion and not about religious theories based on some simple fantasy belief. Could you please mention these gaps you found in evolution again? I must have missed them. Please be as detailed as possible. If you have any references of people who support your claims this would be appreciated as well. This is a fairly hefty claim you are suggesting. Evolution is accepted as a fact across the majority of verticals in science. In the other it is an absolute necessity, I would suggest it is a fact here too. Can you support your claim that nature is intelligently designed? There is really only one remaining strong hold for the final 3(some say 6) religions which grasp at the throats of a disillusioned public, minds of children and wallets of a dying generation. The last stand argument presented from the shadows by all major religions is you can not prove what happened in the time before time existed. Because you can not prove it I believe my god did it, "Nay Nay Boo Boo". This is a fallacy which I will call: a statement from absolute stupidity. Regardless there is no reason to suggest we will not know how and when the universe was created. Theism has demanded science bow to its absolute claims for which it has absolutely no evidence. One example before telescopes(an advances of science) the absolute claim was god lived above the clouds with absolutely no evidence. Then the telescope came and it was believed their kinds throne was just out of site. Well, then this little thing called space exploration(advance of science) came about 50 years ago. Most sophisticated theists will ignore discussing the location of heaven in 2009 - if you want to tell us about I am where to listen. Such absolute claims of theism clutter ancient graveyards of worthless ideas. Anyhow, rants aside. I would like to hear about these gaps in evolution. I am also interested in hearing evidence which supports a complex universe was created by an uncreated creator ex-nihlo.

awmslave -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 12:21:49 PM)
Explaining myself; I am not an opponent of the evolutionary theory. I just recognize it as a theory not as a religion. Evolutionary theory of life is a wonderful and useful theory. In practical sense, it is a good tool for classification of species. Leaving aside pure creationists, ID theorists point out that random mutation mechanism is not sufficient to explain the origin of life and the complexity we have today (the calculations based on known laws of thermodynamics, chemistry and physics do not support the claim). They do not oppose evolution. What I believe (take it just as a hypothesis) there is some guiding principle (call it a law of nature, invisible hand of God) that is involved in the evolutionary process. So, for me (scientifically speaking) “the intelligent design” is just a hypothesis rather than a theory. Scientific method has its limits. It is based on human senses and consciousness. Is there a higher level of consciousness scientific method can not access? From strictly science point of view it can be a hypothesis. It is not impossible. My hope is that research (especially in areas of the genomes, morphogenesis and brain research) will soon bring some clarity. I see the positive side of the debate and introducing politics into it as unnecessary.

DomKen -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 12:47:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave Explaining myself; I am not an opponent of the evolutionary theory. I just recognize it as a theory not as a religion. Evolutionary theory of life is a wonderful and useful theory. In practical sense, it is a good tool for classification of species. In a practical sense the ToE is responsible for virtually ever medical and biological advance of the last 100 years. quote: Leaving aside pure creationists, ID theorists point out that random mutation mechanism is not sufficient to explain the origin of life and the complexity we have today (the calculations based on known laws of thermodynamics, chemistry and physics do not support the claim). Correction they lie about calculating such things. Random mutation put through the not random filter of natural selection is sufficient to account for all the complexity in life. The ToE is fully supported by all of the rest of science. Anyone who claims that evolution violates thermodynamics or chemistry or physics is either a liar or a dupe. quote: They do not oppose evolution. All major ID supporters oppose the ToE to some degree. Pick your personal favorite and I'll produce his statements proving that fact.

awmslave -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 4:14:25 PM)
quote: In a practical sense the ToE is responsible for virtually ever medical and biological advance of the last 100 years. Knowledge of ToE is very useful for organizing thoughts. However, medicine is based mostly on advances in anatomy, biochemistry and molecular biology that can live without evolutionary theory. quote: Correction they lie about calculating such things. Random mutation put through the not random filter of natural selection is sufficient to account for all the complexity in life. The ToE is fully supported by all of the rest of science. Anyone who claims that evolution violates thermodynamics or chemistry or physics is either a liar or a dupe. I wouldn’t make such a claim. There is clear experimental and observational evidence that certain degree of evolution occurs via random mutation mechanisms. However, the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that any degree is possible. The opponents of the orthodox Darwinism demonstrate that macro evolutionary processes (requiring simultaneous massive changes in the genoms and development processes) are not possible via such mechanisms. Intermediary forms (considering the change through series of elementary steps) in most cases can not be shown or constructed. Evolution does not violate laws of science (obviously). Although, the origin of life followed by a progressive evolution is impossible to imagine based on known inorganic and organic chemistry and thermodynamics. quote: All major ID supporters oppose the ToE to some degree. Pick your personal favorite and I'll produce his statements proving that fact. How can they not? That is the point.

philosophy -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 4:21:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FuddleDuddle I think the fact that RNA was synthetically created in a lab from non-organic material (if true - has not yet been independently verified) also could make a strong argument for the intelligent design camp. In effect, it demonstrates that intelligence (in this case, a team of biochemists) was necessary in order to produce life. And they were only able to do so in a tightly controlled environment that would probably never have occurred on a primordial Earth. {my italics} ...probably an honest mistake, but it doesn't prove that intelligence is actually necessary to create RNA, just that intelligence can create RNA. Scientists can, in a lab, create mud by combining 10cc of earth with a similar amount of water......that does not prove that scientists are necessary to create mud.

DomKen -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 5:43:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave Knowledge of ToE is very useful for organizing thoughts. However, medicine is based mostly on advances in anatomy, biochemistry and molecular biology that can live without evolutionary theory. This is simply wrong. One of the major areas of medical research presently centers on developing new antibiotics and new antivirals? Why? Because disease causing bacteria and viruses are continually evolving resistance to the drugs we use to kill them. Anatomy resdearch is entirely driven by the ToE, primarily at this point we explore how our organs and other structures evolved and what weaknesses that builds into our systems. For instance the human kidney is derived from our reptilian ancestors, with adaptations for living in no water, which derived from our amphibian ancestors, with adaptations for living in fresh water, which derived from open ocean fishes, with adaptations for living in salt water. This is the origin of the looping features of the kidney and have profound influences on how we understand and treat renal conditions and it is all completely meaningless without the ToE to explain it. quote: quote: Correction they lie about calculating such things. Random mutation put through the not random filter of natural selection is sufficient to account for all the complexity in life. The ToE is fully supported by all of the rest of science. Anyone who claims that evolution violates thermodynamics or chemistry or physics is either a liar or a dupe. I wouldn’t make such a claim. There is clear experimental and observational evidence that certain degree of evolution occurs via random mutation mechanisms. However, the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that any degree is possible. The opponents of the orthodox Darwinism demonstrate that macro evolutionary processes (requiring simultaneous massive changes in the genoms and development processes) are not possible via such mechanisms. Intermediary forms (considering the change through series of elementary steps) in most cases can not be shown or constructed. Evolution does not violate laws of science (obviously). Although, the origin of life followed by a progressive evolution is impossible to imagine based on known inorganic and organic chemistry and thermodynamics. You wouldn't make that claim but working biologists who study the subject their entire lives would make that claim. You claim the evidence does not warrant that any degree of change is possible so you must be able to state what this limiting mechanism is? Evolutionary processes do not require simulatneous and/or massive changes in the genome or development process. That is a standard creationist lie. The reality is we have overwhelming evidence in the chromosomes of all living things for the evolution of all life from a common ancestor. Pick any major transition and the series can be presented, pre hiominid ape to homo sapiens, hoofed carnivores to whales, dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, fish to amphibians, animals with no back bones to primitive fish are all well documented in the fossil record and all have support from the genetic and biochemical fields as well. Abiogenesis is quite imaginable based on known chemical and thermodynamic properties. Present hypothei postulates the origin of life being in shallow pools over clay. Sunlight provides the needed input energy while the clay provides an effective 'culture dish' for the pre biotic compounds to replicate and develop. Your objection is simply an argument from incredulity which is of little value unless you are an expert in the field in question. For instance I have a hard time believing quantum mechanics but that doesn't make it untrue. quote: quote: All major ID supporters oppose the ToE to some degree. Pick your personal favorite and I'll produce his statements proving that fact. How can they not? That is the point. You were the one who claimed they did not. See your prior post on the subject.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 8:30:46 PM)
It's interesting to note that the surveys of "Actual Scientists", cited above, demonstrate without a doubt, that the majority of Scientists do NOT feel that the evidence for evolution in any way disproves the existance of God. Those posting here that feel science has disproved the existance of God are in the 10% minority of credentialed scientists. ID does mean different things to different people. There is a trademarked school that is simply literalistic bible thumpers substituing the term ID for Creationism,Earth is flat and 5000 years old, ect. However other people feel that the universe was created and designed to produce life through the process of evolution. And also use the term ID. Most scientists, see no contradiction in this.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.198242E-02