Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
When people finally realize there is no theory that describes the origins of artificial species other than intelligent design, I will be laughing at them too. There is no repeatable evidence? We have been doing intelligent design for nearly a decade. Mostly simple single celled organisms, but intelligent design regardless has existed for as long as gene splicing and the likes. If you don`t think gene splicing quite cuts it, then do consider in another few centuries, we will probably be redesigning ourselves from scratch as well as all our other favorite species.
The main rejection of ID I feel is very much cultural. Soon, when it is nearing daily life and the creation of artificial sentience, I think it may be an ethical dilemma as well.
CrackrJak, I admire crusaders, but you may be going overkill.
1. Evolution is a theory, and as a theory, it`s basically a framework of the idea. It`s not a generalized equation that spits out answers. Your claims about irreducibility, of which Behe`s best example was the eye, were refuted last year by an article which showed a possible evolution path for the eye. (Here`s a pbs video article: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...
Now, you can then go and say, "well okay you may have found that one, well what about this one?", but we found the answer to one, and have no real interest in letting ID drive our research direction until we may not be able to find an answer in the fossil record and ID goes `OOH OOH SEE I WAS RIGHT!`.
Evolution is part of life, the idea that it is not true really cannot be argued if you have any concept of biology. Cells mutate. I don`t think there is one reputable scientist in existence that will argue evolution. The evidence surrounds us in our everyday lives. The biggest example that you always hear about on the news or from your doctor is that you can`t keep taking the same antibiotic or eventually the bacteria will become immune to it: that`s evolution people!We really need to just drop the issue, because to me it`s old and annoying. Let there be a common ground...Creationists: what`s wrong with the idea of God creating evolution?Evolutionists: what the hell is wrong with letting them think that?
No ID scientist claims to know what the source of intelligence is, As I`ve stated previously.
"I find it telling that you fail to name any scientist or peer-reviewed journal associated with ID."
There are several books and papers on the subject, Many were peer reviewed before the evolutionists, Decided to autocratically dismiss them as scientific heresy. They hurriedly cobbled together counter-arguments and blacklisted anyone that dared challenge the status quo. And I`ve given ample resources here as evidence.
That`s like saying a trillion chimpanzees all typing 24/7 at random would eventually type Shakespeare`s Hamlet. That`s a fallacious argument.
The simplest cell was supposedly the "earliest form of life". What I`m saying is that even that couldn`t have been built on it`s own, Without the first cell there is no natural selection, no replication, no chance of mutations, imperfections, or anything else.
This isn`t "Which came first, The chicken or the egg". This "Which came first, The cell or the cellular machines ?"
Darwin said that evolution didn`t make large leaps, but small slow steps. The irreducibly complex mechanisms are not large leaps.. They are more like rocket launches into space. The gaps between evolutionary examples are that immense.
No, it`s actually a statistical inevitability. When you start with the simplest life, the chance of it becoming more complex over millions of generations of imperfect replication is 1. You seem to think that cells have always been as complex as they are today.
Isn`t it funny how almost every organ which was supposed to be irreducibly complex has been explained? Try reading up on the human eye.
No, I`m saying it`s okay to believe that there was intelligent design anywhere you see fit, so long as you accept that it`s not scientific and don`t try to force it in science class.
"If something couldn`t have evolved on it`s own, Then it came from somewhere else. Where did these non evolutionary things come from ? Thin air ? "
Do you have the faintest idea of how science works? Just because one idea doesn`t hold up doesn`t automagically verify another. It could be found that evolution is impossible, but that would never be proof for ID. It would only be proof that evolution is false and we need to find a new hypothesis.
You don`t want to objectively search for an answer, you want to simply say `Too complex, I give up, God did it.`
I find it telling that you fail to name any scientist or peer-reviewed journal associated with ID.
There are several molecular machines that are irreducibly complex, and evolutionists go berserk at the mere mention of them. Why ? Because it threatens their entire worldview and livelihood.
These machines need instructions to be built, millions of them. Even the simplest of cells need not only DNA but the instructions to make them, and the other molecular machines to assemble translate, assemble, fold, and move them around.
This is akin to an entire car factory being built in place entirely on it`s own, Complete with blueprints and workers, All at once and without some intelligence guiding it.
That is statistically impossible, Yet evolutionists believe it as fact.
I`ve given evidence, You`ve skimmed over it and rejected it out of hand.
All the discovery institute did was give some books to the school. They did not lend support to the legal case. I`ve read the case several times.
I like how you continue to accuse me of being close-minded rather than answer my questions and trying to have an intellectual discussion to convince me.
It`s amazing how often people who call themselves "open-minded" are only open to those who agree with them.
One court case doesn`t mean ID = creationism.
The ID community doesn`t care about the social issue of local school boards with a creationist agenda. That`s why they declined to involve themselves in it. Instead they are concerned with the science and research.
Your rigid instance on the issue marches right in lockstep with those that want the idea of ID expunged from the planet... That is fascism. (a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control)
Stephen C. Meyer Phd.Douglas Axe Phd
One need not fully understand the origin or identity of the designer to determine that an object was designed. Thus, this question is essentially irrelevant to intelligent design theory, which merely seeks to detect if an object was designed.
Your remarks on them are evident that you barely even glanced at them then dismissed them outright without cognition.
Now I know you`re just a troll.
Many Phd scientists are involved in ID theory.
If something couldn`t have evolved on it`s own, Then it came from somewhere else. Where did these non evolutionary things come from ? Thin air ? A flagellum motor for example didn`t mutate from a hair follicle, It`s too distinct and complex.Considering it took human beings thousands of years to "invent" the same thing (Not even knowing what a flagellum motor was) It suggests an intelligence designed it.
"when I`ve given substantial evidence to the contrary. Which I`m betting you having even bothered to look at, Thus the "Intellectually lazy" moniker fits."So are you choosing to ignore my responses to both of the links you provided, the links which I read and commented on? PLease don`t act like I`m talking out of my ass and refuse to read what you provided. I read and responded to both links.
#1 Are you saying you don`t have faith in evolution ?Evolutionists certainly do cling to the theory as though it is a religion, Complete with heretics they want burned at the stake.
#2 I was insulted first, Don`t fire a shot at me and I won`t fire back ok ?
#3 You`re stuck on cementing ID and creationism as the same thing when I`ve given substantial evidence to the contrary. Which I`m betting you having even bothered to look at, Thus the "Intellectually lazy" moniker fits.
So your basing a philosophical idea.... on a legal court case?
So you`re saying it`s okay to believe there was intelligent design in the cosmos, but not in the development of life?
Don`t get me wrong, I know I have no answers whatsoever.
"Afterall how many Harvard PHD`s and Yale MBA`s does it take to destroy the worlds economy?"
Greenspan went to NYU
I think you bring up a very interesting question, one people have been asking themselves for over a century.
Personally, as a humanistic Jew, I really don`t care if there is a god or not. Being a jew, I don`t believe in hell so if there is a god, it`s no skin off my nose.
But for others, I think there can be a relation there, a compromise. People simply have to open their eyes and stop believing anything they want because their mind only sees one possibility. God could be more of a watchful eye, gently interacting with humans and maybe seeing that the first seed of life popped out of the ocean. Each of the seven days could represent millions of years.
We don`t have to be close minded, we can evolve our ideas and try to understand nature rather than rejecting what is not convenient.
Even supposing this weren`t made up, finding something that couldn`t have evolved is in no way proof for ID.
That is flat out false, You know nothing about how the idea of ID came about. It came from scientists writing papers, Most became peer reviewed, Then published. After they were published the Darwinists went on the attack, Falsely claiming these were creationist attempts to thwart evolution.
The scientists that have found these inexplicable natural oddities, That have no trace of evolutionary process, Have no theological training or purpose. They simply pointed out their direct observations for purposes of research.
This was years before the Kansas school board case. You`re saying the case came first then the ID science came after, That`s either and outright lie or an ignorant statement.
How about the fact that societal evolution provides us with morals that ancient and easily-twisted texts cannot?
Sure! You can believe that God put us all here on Earth if you like. But please, don`t try and deny that well-established scientific processes occur, and PLEASE don`t try to sell your philosophy in science class.
Really, that`s all we`re asking for here.
Can one have faith and not believe in some sort of intelligent design? To think that God had no role in our existence would be to think there is no God. If there is a god, he had to have something to do with it.
Or did He come from the Big Bang?
Except for the fossil record, and antibacterial vaccines (You get your shots, right?), and the Luria-Delbruck experiment, and so on...
Sure I do. They`re devoted to certain concepts and ideas, but that doesn`t make it a religion! Are zealous republicans devoted to the theology of republicanism? Are zealous vegetarians devoted to the theology of vegetarianism?
Don`t just throw around words. They have meaning that you seem to blithely ignore.
LOL. You don`t think there are zealots in science who in order to save face will not under ANY circumstance admit when they are wrong? This is exactly WHY rule #10 of the Scientific method exists. There are may people so in love with the hypothesis (that is truly all it ever can be) of evolution, that they will distort or eliminate any evidence that does not fit the theoretical time-line or into their agenda to forward an hypothesis as a fact.
I like how in that post you1. insulted us2. put forth a superficial display of somehow saying that an IQ makes you automatically right (you have no way of gauging our IQ btw, for all you know our IQ could be higher, but your inflated sense of self assumes we are dumber for having a different opinion)3. Somehow twisted yourself into a victim, though I certainly have yet to attack you, by saying were gonna call you a Religious Nut
Also, calling evolution theology is insulting. It`s a scientific theory. Theology is based on faith, not evidence like evolution is.
If you seriously think that a scientific idea can be a religion then I call bull on your supposed IQ.
Non condescension there, Too bad it doesn`t apply.I have a college degree and an IQ of 150 avg of 6 different tests.
I`m betting the "Religious Nut" accusation will follow soon. Yet you and Sydust have a deathgrip on your evolutionary theology, That`s what is nutty. Keep an open mind and you`ll learn more.
even improbability doesn`t mean that you can turn around and say... see it is proof that there must be ID... that is inference... you haven`t proved that ID is the only possibility.
Again ID is NOT creationism. "
All you are proposing is a different form of abiogenesis. Richard Dawkins even stated that panspermia is a possible origin of abiogenesis. But your idea is very different from the I-dunno-so-God-did-it approach taken by the majority of ID proponents.
I was wondering if it was clear enough!
A theory is an idea that has been tested, repeated, and never found wanting. You`ve confused a hypothesis with a theory, which is rather like confusing bills and laws. This is a rather glaring error that any high-school student should be able to point out.
"In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." That`s why things like evolution or gravity are merely theories."
I was taught that a fact is an objective observation of an event. Where are you getting this definition from?
It is completely a different perspective than the traditional biblical use.
it mentions the cosmic limit law of chance... in summary, (correct me if I`m wrong), chancing the cosmos`s existance as 1^121,
even if it was 1^100000000, why do we feel that there must automatically be some designer behind it, instead of accepting it is just as probable as every other permutation?
There are research articles that I have used in programming genetic algorithms that demonstrate that even adding junk interon data into the mix (non functional, and non informational), improves the efficiency of the evolutionary process dramatically...
I will digest this link more... it isn`t something you can read and intelligently comment on in 5 mins.
Again ID is NOT creationism.
I believe there is a creator. I believe that this creator presents itself around us and we can see a glimmer of it in everything. Am I religious? Let`s define Religion now:
The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system," but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.
Now that being said, NO. I have personal convictions, but do not hold to a religious system. I have personal beliefs, but I do not practice rituals nor do I lean on it as a crutch. I have not tossed aside reason or science. I look at things in a different way than some scientists will allow in their o
This being just one.
...no one ever profited, pillaged, raped, killed, murdered or exploited because of religion...
I actually copy-pasted incorrectly...should have read:12. ????13. PROFIT!
Any hypothesis needs to withstand, and even invite challenges.
They`ve also have violated stages 9 and 10 by turning evolution into it`s own sort of theology.
As Prime has noted they also profit from evolutionary theory, So any challenge to it is met with knee-jerk reactionism.
At best, in a linear, closed mind that will not allow parallel thought, it makes it to stage 7, which is still a hypothesis or potential solution to the problem. In no way has the "theory of evolution" made it past this stage. It is not provable beyond any reasonable doubt to be true and the only possible conclusion-- therefore when it is presented as "fact" the person presenting the information has violated step 10 of the scientific method and suspended judgment.
Eliminate the emotion wrapped up in this theory, and it remains, only a theory. It`s when emotion gets involved that people look beyond the science and claim it as fact...
11. ?????12. PROFIT!11. Take Action
Pangenesis, As a theory, Is dying. More and more researchers are seeing evidence of things that could not have just invented themselves. The probabilities of spontaneous genetic mutation resulting in something useful and beneficial are astronomic (on the scale of winning the state lottery everyday for a year, one ticket per day)
I sympathize one hundred percent. It especially galls me that these... people can attempt to hide their ideas by pretending that they are science, when the issue is so transparently one of religion or at best politics. Still, they can use the uninformed masses for support, no matter how irrational they may be in the eyes of the educated.
Sorry, I`m tired. My point is still the same though. People holding back scientific progress by forcing their own ideas on the general public just really pushes a button for me.
Intelligent Design is not psychodynamics. It`s Creationism re-labeled and masquerading as science. And teaching it in science class as the origin of life in unscientific, unconstitutional, and driven purely by religious motives of those too inept to adapt their faith to fit the facts.
Sydust- I was using Creationism/ID as an example of something that violates those rules and is therefore not science. Check out my previous posts.
What do you people have against psychodynamics?I find Adlers work very thought provoking and interesting. Screw the advanced testing
DOn`t you ever say that ID is science. It is a disgrace to the scientific community to put it in the same category as a theory. DO you have any idea what a theory means? You need a crapload of proof, theory is a word scientist use with reverence. ID is not a theory, it is not recognized at a theory by a scientific community. It is a joke.Science: "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"No proof, no observation, no experimentation. ID is not nor will it ever be a theory until someone proves something or conducts even one tangible experiment. I respect people`s decision to follow blind faith, but leave science alone. Religion has held back scientific
Ah, here`s the confusion. Evolution has been proven in that it is a scientific fact. We observe evolution occur every day, both historically and in action. It`s both a fact, in that it is observed to occur, and a theory, in that the processes by which it occurs are understood.
I agree... evolution can now only be disproven... because all of the evidence suggest that it is a solid theory...
Re-read what I said..its there in pretty letters...when did I say it can be falsified?
poop said evolution has been proven, if evolution is a theory, then logic holds it cant be proven only disproven
Not you..you.....the other same avie you
The fact that something can be falsified does not mean that it can be dismissed. Indeed, a scientific idea MUST be able to be falsified, else it cannot become a hypothesis, let alone a theory. Case in point- Intelligent Design/Creationism.
did I do this?
I believe the law of relativity has actually changed over time because Einsteins theory doesn`t hold up at the quantum level... I`m no physicist though so don`t flame me if I`m wrong!
Henceforth theories cant be proved, only disproved. 4th grade science guys..not to hard."I contend we are both atheists" No, I believe in God. Next.
"And yet you entirely miss the point."
I got that, what i`m saying is that you shouldn`t misuse english and start making up your own definitions.
no need to flame.
"Theories can only be disproved..... wow I thought that was pretty obvious."
yes they can. Thats the point. Scientific process means that the theories are challenged... and to stand the test of time there can`t be significant physical evidence to the contrary.
Can religion do the same? does it adapt its canon law to accomodate new information?
"And pancakes are better than waffles BUT waffle houses are better than pancake houses"
Yeah waffle houses are better.
And yet you entirely miss the point.
For the same reason that you disbelieve in Vishnu, Krishna, Odin, Thor, Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, Allah, and Horus, an atheist can disbelieve in God.
Then disprove gravity. Show us that we aren`t pulled to the ground.
Disprove nuclear theory. Show us that nuclear reactors don`t work and Hiroshima still stands.
Disprove relativity. Show us that Einstein was utterly wrong and that satellites don`t have time dilation issues.
athiest dont believe in any gods. theist believe in at least one. Im tired of this stupid quote being used. Stupid rhetoric
Theories can only be disproved..... wow I thought that was pretty obvious.
And pancakes are better than waffles BUT waffle houses are better than pancake houses
"You cant prove there is no God." True. You can`t prove a negative. "I cant prove there is One. I cant prove evolution wrong. You cant prove it right. No one can prove either of these right or wrong." FLAT OUT F*<KING WRONG. How thick are you? There`s no way to prove evolution is true? Well dang, I guess scientists just shrug at all these fossils then, huh? I strongly suggest reading a basic book on biology. Or better yet, visit a museum, or a university. You can SEE THE FOSSILS.
I agree... you can`t prove evolution...
it is a theory, not a law, and evidence may come forth disproving it... then the theory will be no more.
If my ignorance scares you, watch george carlin. thats scary.
I`m not saying that there is a God, or that evolution happened. I am standing back and stating the opinion that they both require faith.
You cant prove there is no God. I cant prove there is One. I cant prove evolution wrong. You cant prove it right. No one can prove either of these right or wrong.
So go ahead and recite what you`ve heard and read on other websites, and bash the hell out of what you dont believe for being "ignorant." And afterwards, try to come up with your own conclusion
Can`t we argue about something more colorful now? Like cake frosting, or waffles?
They weren`t worth really worth mentioning... I bet there are 100 sites that solve these contradictions out there as well...
here is one.
the whole contradiction thing misses the point. Even if there were contradictions, that necessarily prove or disprove anything.
... if there were contradictions, perhaps it could be the fallability of man to recieve gods word accurately.
Same avie, same person. You and madest and mondo are just the same person
that was someone else :)
Where there is room for interpretation than of course contradictions will arise.
How about you pick your own little favorite contradiction. You know, for kicks and giggles
(*waits for people to attack me instead of the argument*
The more ignorant with blind faith you are, the less you need to substantiate anything with fact I guess... making the holes vanish.
I believe in the flying spagetti monster. He told me that he is real and god is fake, and that anyone that is any other religion is wrong. He told me he is all powerful and all knowledgeable and despite the lack of logic of something being all powerful, I believed him.
Wow... all the holes just vanished.
Ok...what are they?
Through GAs, traits develop in data sets that would require many random mutations to occur simaltanesouly - traits that are unexplainable without understanding the process that was used. This is be shown to happen again and again - and it provides supporting evidence to the idea that whilst something like the eye may appear to appear to be irreducibly complex, there is a simple explanation - with proof - that explains it.
I am not attempting to show definitive proof of evolution. I am suggesting data that supports a hypothesis, not just saying `You are wrong I am right.`
Those who honestly care about the truth will risk the non-sense that is an afterlife in hell. It`s scary, I know, but truth molds around reality, not the other way around.
Dogmas and doctrines, although they can be clarified, enlarged, or restated for the sake of changing times, can never, ever be abolished, contradicted, or altered. They are quite literally, "Canon Law."
No offense, but that`s a pretty poor argument. The complexities of the most intricate computer program are nothing next to the complexities of even the simplest life form. Also, yes, I`ve read the Bible and The God Delusion, and I`m working on the Koran and Torah. I read Dawkins with a completely open mind and my faith only grew.
And if it took millions of years for this environment to be adapted to, why wasnt other environments adapted to on other planets? Oh thats right, its unable to support life. Well, by our life standards, anyway. Those planets started with the same scenario we did, nothing had ever lived there before, and life emerged here. Why not there? That is my own personal "proof" against evolution.
Its Supernatural (Intelligent Design) vs. Impossibility (Evolution). Take your pick. Both take Faith, and a lot of
"Creationism/Intelligent Design are unfalsifiable, untestable, and invoke the supernatural. Those three characteristics each independently render the idea unfit for the title of hypothesis. They`re not science, plain and simple."
Wow...isn`t that a slap to the works of Carl Jung.
Bull. Evolution is a scientific theory, which is an idea that has been tested repeatedly by science and NEVER found to be false. Just like gravity, relativity, and nuclear theory- other scientific theories with just as much evidence as evolution.
There`s no controversy within the scientific community as to whether evolution occurs or not. None. Creationists instead try and argue for `opposing viewpoints`, to get a decidedly non-scientific idea into classrooms.
Creationism/Intelligent Design are unfalsifiable, untestable, and invoke the supernatural. Those three characteristics each independently render the idea unfit for the title of hypothesis. They`re not science, plain and simple.
It`s not a political or sociological issue. It`s religion, plain and simple. The religious refuse to accept any idea that they believe compromises their faith.
where is the scientific double blind experiments that prove this? Or are you using the usual flawed logic that is commonly used against evolution?
As a programmer that works on genetic algorithms for software for a living, I have seen with my own eyes applications scour billions and billions of permutations of variables and datasets, and arrive at a statistically identical outcome, in as little as 50 generations... overcoming `irreducible complexity` arguments commonly used to argue against evolution.
The critical difference between Science and Religion: Science changes in light of new evidence.If there was evidence that evolution was a failed theory, then scientists replicate the experiment to make sure... and change the textbooks. Religious dogma doesn`t change...
I`m an athiest and have read the bible... have you read The God Delusion by Dawkins? have you read the Koran?... or did you just swallow what you were told?
Also I think he misses the point, he`s suggesting people believe in whatever will make society work better not whats necessarily true. I suspect that there were many creationists in the audience.
I say it`s okay in every single case. Haha, so who wants to fight?
It`s not a cultural debate because the debate (within science) is OVER. End of story.
As far as being "sheltered" goes, take it from me...both sides will call you such if you try to avoid poor influences.