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

DomKen -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 8:45:48 PM)
The term intelligent design is teh creation of biblical literalists. The term was coined after SCOTUS banned 'creation science' from public schools. This is very well documented by Dr. Barbara Forrest. And to put paid to the claim I have never said that evolution disproves any supernatural entity. Science simply shows that no supernatural event has ever been observed and no event has ever occured for which only a supernatural explanation will suffice. My atheism is based on common sense and the ability to read and think.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 8:58:15 PM)
I apologize Dom Ken if you thought I was refering to you, you are not one of the People who thinks Science disproves the concept of God. There are several on these boards who do, however. It doesn't matter who coined the term. It has more than one meaning. We can agree to disagree on this, its all good. Dr Forests work notwithstanding, the term was used in print as far back as 1847, "The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove,[57] and even in an 1861 letter of Charles Darwin.[58] The phrase was used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design skim down to origins of the term Since the 1840s the term has been used to explain an process of evolution that has a directed plan, a designer. That 5000 yr old flat Earthers recently took over the word doesn't matter.

DomKen -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 9:03:10 PM)
You need to read that article again. It makes clear that the usage of the term is post Aguillard and is directly attributable to the creationist movement. That the two words occured together a couple of times before that doesn't change anything.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 9:07:31 PM)
Dude Wiki isn't a source for deep analysis, just basic factoids and dates. The fact is the term has been used in print since the 1840s. That the term was used over decades in print, having a fairly consistent meaning does matter. But we can agree to disagree on it.

awmslave -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 10:47:31 PM)
quote: 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. Micro-evolution of viruses is a good example but seriously used for practical medicine only maybe during last two decades. The major achievements in biology during last 100 years are mostly related to solving cell structures and biochemical mechanisms using reductionist approach. The evolutionary studies are traditionally attached to but not fundamentally decisive for the discoveries. quote: Evolutionary processes do not require simulatneous and/or massive changes in the genome or development process. That is a standard creationist lie. I do not quite understand this claim. It seemed to me that here we may have some difficulties. Take for example evolution of the ear. In my understanding it requires significant amount of information to develop and work. Where it comes from? Regarding abiogenesis it is rather hard to imagine the huge jump required to produce self-replicable system. It sounds good as a hypothesis (in particular for a non-chemist). quote: You were the one who claimed they did not. See your prior post on the subject. I meant evolution in general. Their claim is that we need something else in addition.

awmslave -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 10:55:50 PM)
Here one can find a list of scientists who do not prescribe to traditional orthodox Darwinism: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ " We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"

DomKen -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 11:19:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie Dude Wiki isn't a source for deep analysis, just basic factoids and dates. The fact is the term has been used in print since the 1840s. That the term was used over decades in print, having a fairly consistent meaning does matter. But we can agree to disagree on it. Dude you posted it not me. I refered you to the acknowledged expert on the subject. Your own source showed you were mistaken. I know you're mistaken because while you claim it was in frequent use since 1840 you won't be able to show more than a handful of occurences, I know because I've seen the research on the subject. You don't have to believe me though you can read Creationism's Trojan Horse by Dr. Forrest or you can find her testimony from Kitzmiller here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

DomKen -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 11:39:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave Micro-evolution of viruses is a good example but seriously used for practical medicine only maybe during last two decades. The major achievements in biology during last 100 years are mostly related to solving cell structures and biochemical mechanisms using reductionist approach. The evolutionary studies are traditionally attached to but not fundamentally decisive for the discoveries. Check with researchers in the fields. The ToE is vital to their work and has been for decades. quote: quote: Evolutionary processes do not require simulatneous and/or massive changes in the genome or development process. That is a standard creationist lie. I do not quite understand this claim. It seemed to me that here we may have some difficulties. Take for example evolution of the ear. In my understanding it requires significant amount of information to develop and work. Where it comes from? It arose in small increments. The mammalian inner ear started off as the bones in the back of the reptile lower jaw, we have a quite complete sequence of fossils that show it happening. It started out as the ability to sense vibrations transmitted through the skeleton, we still hear this way to some extent. It eventually became localized to primarily being picked up through the lower jaw, snakes perceive sound this way. Finally as mammals evolved from reptiles the back bones of the lower jaw migrated and shrank to become the 2 of the inner ear bones. The evolution of the outer ear is less well documented, cartilage doesn't often fossilize, but we can examine reptiles alive today and see that at most they have a simple opening without any structure external to the skull. It is reasonable to assume that as hearing improved in proto mammals, remember the bones moving into the inner ear at this time, any mutations that resulted in a shape better at catching sound would be conserved. mutation piled on top of mutation and we wind up with all the different shapes and capabilities of the mammalian ear. A recent article on the subject: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossil-reveals-ear-evolution-in-action quote: Regarding abiogenesis it is rather hard to imagine the huge jump required to produce self-replicable system. It sounds good as a hypothesis (in particular for a non-chemist). Argument from incredulity again. You don't understand how it could happen is not sufficient to declare that god did it. All that you can say is you don't understand how it could have happened. quote: quote: You were the one who claimed they did not. See your prior post on the subject. I meant evolution in general. Their claim is that we need something else in addition. Most of them deny all of evolution or try to avoid answering any question that would show them to be at odds with their financier, Howard Ahmanson. As to the list you presented, here is a fairly straight forward rebuttal as well as a list that make sit clear how unsupported ID actually is: http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve Details on other issues with the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism In simple terms almost no one on the list is actually an expert in a field relevant to the ToE and the list is basically a fallacious appeal to authority.

Esinn -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/13/2009 11:43:39 PM)
quote: fallacious appeal to authority. quote: ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie I apologize Dom Ken if you thought I was refering to you, you are not one of the People who thinks Science disproves the concept of God. There are several on these boards who do, however. It doesn't matter who coined the term. It has more than one meaning. We can agree to disagree on this, its all good. Dr Forests work notwithstanding, the term was used in print as far back as 1847, "The phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove,[57] and even in an 1861 letter of Charles Darwin.[58] The phrase was used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design skim down to origins of the term Since the 1840s the term has been used to explain an process of evolution that has a directed plan, a designer. That 5000 yr old flat Earthers recently took over the word doesn't matter. Science does not disprove god. Science demonstrates the belief in god is irrational, immature, meaningless, dangerous and pointless. Thanks for getting it wrong.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/14/2009 4:43:51 AM)
Really? It demonstrates those things. What experiments would you cite as evidence for that?

Apocalypso -> RE: Unintelligent Design - how to get an A+ (8/14/2009 1:51:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn Science demonstrates the belief in god is irrational, immature, meaningless, dangerous and pointless No it doesn't. You're making precisely the same category mistake the creationists do.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.614258E-02