Double Exposure, Inc.
  • December 01, 2020, 06:05:00 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Intelligent Design  (Read 12009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Intelligent Design
« on: October 11, 2008, 10:27:03 AM »

Definition of Intelligent DesignWhat is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

See New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design.

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

See also: http://www.y-origins.com/?gclid=CNLbyrmyn5YCFQIWFQodfkuT6g
& http://darwinconspiracy.com/
pay special attention to what comes after this : Evolution Theory Is Neither a Law Nor a Fact
Is the Theory of Evolution just a theory? What is the difference between a theory and a law of science? We answer those questions below.

Scientific theories come and go. There is a huge graveyard of discredited scientific theories. In the long history of science, thousands of scientific theories have been either disproved or superseded by a more valid theory.

If a theory has, in the eyes of science, been proven, the theory then gets a promotion, and rises to the level of being deemed to be a law and not just a theory. In short, a scientific law is regarded by science to be a fact, whereas a theory may or may not be true at all.

To the credit of science, it has wisely not promoted the Theory of Evolution to the status of being a law. Below, we will explain one of the main reasons why the Theory of Evolution remains a theory and not a law, and no one has the right to claim evolution is a fact or law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I post this because in http://darwinconspiracy.com/ it lays out why evolution is so flawed and can not be considered a law or a fact which is how this discussion first came about.
See also : http://www.judgingpbs.com/
As far as no missing links : http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution#Theory_of_Evolution_and_Lack_of_Any_Clear_Transitional_Forms
Part of the problem with Evolution is that it has become a faith, I find this quote by one of the leading Evolutionary scientists to be particularly illuminating.
In regards to the falsifiability of the evolutionary position, although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal Nature the following:

ď  Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets
« Last Edit: October 11, 2008, 11:26:35 AM by Mack Ravensline »
Logged

Bulova

  • Paul Birnbaum. The one and only. (Aren't you lucky?)
  • Super Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2008, 01:22:14 PM »

Do I need to point out that "Intelligent Design" also doesn't have a Mathematical Formula to back it up?

Or that "Helpless Babies" are a red herring: some species evolved the instinct to form familial relationships (some lasting only long enough to complete marginal upbringing to self-sufficiency); others just produce so many offspring that most are killed off anyway, allowing "survival of the fittest" (or luckiest) of the remainders to propagate the species.

And I'm still looking for the "gene addition" answer, but I think that their postulate about mutation not being able to result in so-called gene-addition is just plain wrong.

Actually, from the content and tone, the "Darwin Conspiracy" website seems more like a propaganda site than anything related to pure science.

But nice try.
Logged
President Bartlet: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Do you know why?

Will Bailey: Because that's the only thing that ever has.

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2008, 03:46:21 PM »

Definition of Intelligent DesignWhat is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds 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. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

See New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design.

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

See also: http://www.y-origins.com/?gclid=CNLbyrmyn5YCFQIWFQodfkuT6g
& http://darwinconspiracy.com/
pay special attention to what comes after this : Evolution Theory Is Neither a Law Nor a Fact
Is the Theory of Evolution just a theory? What is the difference between a theory and a law of science? We answer those questions below.

Scientific theories come and go. There is a huge graveyard of discredited scientific theories. In the long history of science, thousands of scientific theories have been either disproved or superseded by a more valid theory.

If a theory has, in the eyes of science, been proven, the theory then gets a promotion, and rises to the level of being deemed to be a law and not just a theory. In short, a scientific law is regarded by science to be a fact, whereas a theory may or may not be true at all.

To the credit of science, it has wisely not promoted the Theory of Evolution to the status of being a law. Below, we will explain one of the main reasons why the Theory of Evolution remains a theory and not a law, and no one has the right to claim evolution is a fact or law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I post this because in http://darwinconspiracy.com/ it lays out why evolution is so flawed and can not be considered a law or a fact which is how this discussion first came about.
See also : http://www.judgingpbs.com/
As far as no missing links : http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution#Theory_of_Evolution_and_Lack_of_Any_Clear_Transitional_Forms
Part of the problem with Evolution is that it has become a faith, I find this quote by one of the leading Evolutionary scientists to be particularly illuminating.
In regards to the falsifiability of the evolutionary position, although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal Nature the following:

ď  Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets


Where'd you cut and paste this from?
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

SigmaCaine

  • Guest
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2008, 05:02:47 PM »

Since you didn't reply to my nutshell version of the second law of thermodynamics, can I assume you see where you were mislead about your quoted extrapolation of concepts? If you are having trouble understanding it (which is nothing to be ashamed of; it's not exactly grade-school science), I can attempt another explanation with diagrams (there's no way I'm going to show the math by typing it out - I'll have to make some jpeg's or something).

I'm still curious about the constraints on your quoted odds of life.
Logged

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2008, 05:17:58 PM »

Since you didn't reply to my nutshell version of the second law of thermodynamics, can I assume you see where you were mislead about your quoted extrapolation of concepts? If you are having trouble understanding it (which is nothing to be ashamed of; it's not exactly grade-school science), I can attempt another explanation with diagrams (there's no way I'm going to show the math by typing it out - I'll have to make some jpeg's or something).

I'm still curious about the constraints on your quoted odds of life.
Actually I was a physics major. I understood it quite well. I have not had this discussion in some time and some of my data was out of date. The idea I was trying for was more along the lines of the Gene addition arguement. Thank you for causing me to go back in and bone up some.
Logged

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2008, 12:35:13 PM »

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=beginning6
The expanding Universe theory suggests that at some point the Universe had a start. If it is expanding, it is not infinite, but finite. At this time there is no exact way to measure the exact speed of expansion or whether that expansion is increasing or decreasing, but it does show that it had a beginning and that at that time something formed from nothing. This is a big part of the theory of Intelligent Design. Now Christians believe that the rate of expansion is exponential and has been increasing more and more rapidly since God created the Earth and all of the heavens.
http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=eye3

One of the parts of Darwin's theories was he explained that complex systems within the body developed a little at a time due to natural selection, however the eye is one of those systems with individual components that if any are removed it does not work. It could not have developed gradually. It had to have come about all at once. This would be to say that it would have happened quickly. A random mutation would not account for this.

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=DNA4
According to mathematicians when the odds against an event occurring are 1 in 10150  or greater, it canít be accidential. In order to grasp such an astronomical number, consider that the odds against winning a Power ball lottery with a single ticket is about 1 in 108. Or trying to pick a solitary atom from all the atoms in the universe would be 1 in 1080. Other than sex and blood cells, every cell in your body is making approximately two thousand proteins every second. A protein is a combination of three hundred to over a thousand amino acids. An adult human body is made of approximately seventy-five trillion cells. Every second of every minute of every day, your body and every body is organizing on the order of 150 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand amino acids into carefully constructed chains of proteins. Every second; every minute; every day. The fabric from which we and all life are built is being continually rewoven at a most astoundingly rapid rate. The chance of each amino acid finding the correct bond is one in twenty; the chance of one hundred amino acids hooking up to successfully make a functional protein is one in 1030. The shear complexity and specificity of the body is another factor that works against evolution. The odds of this developing in the 13 Billion years that most scientists accept as the age of the Earth calculated by the current rate of expansion of the Universe as we understand it now, are enough to make it nearly impossible. Just to create life in it most basic form is astronomically against.

http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_10questions.htm
These are very good questions to ask yourselves too.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2008, 02:24:40 PM by Mack Ravensline »
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2008, 10:47:19 PM »

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=beginning6
The expanding Universe theory suggests that at some point the Universe had a start.

This is nine pages of vaguely explaining "big bang theory", interspersed with non sequitors about how this somehow proves that the universe was created by an intelligent force. They say absolutely nothing of substance, and don't do anything at all to support the position. They just say, "hey, a big bang means there was a beginning, or mythology also says there was a beginning, holy shit our mythology was right! in your face!" Of course, by their reckoning, so were a few other mythologies. Creation myths are a dime a dozen, yo.

If it is expanding, it is not infinite, but finite. At this time there is no exact way to measure the exact speed of expansion or whether that expansion is increasing or decreasing, but it does show that it had a beginning and that at that time something formed from nothing.

How does a finite universe supports your point? Also, saying there is no exact way to make those measurements, in the way you say it, makes it sound like anyone's guess is good. This is not true. There are increasingly precise methods for making those measurements, and they support a many billions of years old universe, as yet.

This is a big part of the theory of Intelligent Design.

The part where Intelligent Design isn't really Young Earth Creationism in disguise, but it really is, and it's kinda lame how weak the fiction is and how the movement can't keep it straight?

Now Christians believe that the rate of expansion is exponential and has been increasing more and more rapidly since God created the Earth and all of the heavens.

Which Christians?

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=eye3
One of the parts of Darwin's theories was he explained that complex systems within the body developed a little at a time due to natural selection, however the eye is one of those systems with individual components that if any are removed it does not work. It could not have developed gradually. It had to have come about all at once. This would be to say that it would have happened quickly. A random mutation would not account for this.

Wow... the fucking EYE thing again? This is a weak argument on its face, but the fact that its actually demonstrably contrafactual makes it pathetic. No one spontaneously sprouted eyes: you've got that right. But it's relatively trivial to propose a sequence of mutations over time that would lead to the development of the eye, and in fact this has been done.

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=DNA4
According to mathematicians when the odds against an event occurring are 1 in 10150  or greater, it canít be accidential.

No. According to ONE mathematician. Bill fucking Dembski, borrowing heavily from the mathematical contributions of Adam Douglas.

The whole rest of that quote is based on his assertion that his arbitrarily reached probability bound is correct, and applicable. It is not.

http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_10questions.htm
These are very good questions to ask yourselves too.

1) Actually, my HS bio textbooks didn't cover this at all. But I've got to wonder why every damn thing that ID propagandists argue against is from pre-1970. WTF is it with people pretending the last 40-50 years didn't happen, or shouldn't have?

2) First of all, that is a gross mischaracterization of the Cambrian explosion. Second, WTF is it with fetishizing dead scientists? Darwin was not the only man studying this shit in his own time, and it's been like, 2 centuries! Science changes over time - theories are tested, new evidence is discovered, better understandings are achieved. Whole fucking point of science, really. Missed! Third, there's been a lot of interesting workany such claims. on this, and you would be well served to read up on it. Kind of unfair to hit an HS bio teacher with this, though - bio is a freshman/sophomore class, generally, and doesn't get much more advanced than king phillip came over for good spaghetti.

3) Because they are poorly written pastiche designed to get past the sensibilities of some Texan mongoloids whose better-off cousins got them spots on the purchasing board? But the point would be that biologists, and the science of biology generally, do NOT make any such claims.

4) A question better asked of textbook editors. My textbook did cover this, at some point, as I clearly recall what this refers to. I doubt a discussion of the accuracy of Haeckel's illustrations is appropriate to early bio courses, though.

I mean, I could go on, but your sources frankly suck ass. Try again.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Bulova

  • Paul Birnbaum. The one and only. (Aren't you lucky?)
  • Super Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2008, 01:01:49 AM »

Let's just talk about the rat-in-the-complex-maze thing for a minute.

If we place one rat in the maze, it would have to be pretty smart to negotiate his way around and out of the maze. Stipulated.

Now let's look at the effect of probability:

Let's dump 100 rats in that one maze, all meandering about, looking for the egress. What's the odds that one of them will find it? A bit better than that one rat by himself, right?

Okay, let's up it to 100,000 rats. Or a million. We can even make the maze itself bigger and more complex. But the odds are, no matter how intricate and complex the maze is, if we allow enough random rats to wander around in it, one of them is going to find his way out.

If there are enough planets in the universe, some with the right chemical compounds sitting in the right combinations, and some of them have just the right amount of energy (in the form of local sunlight) added to the mixture, then some of THEM will percolate up a rudimentary protein mixture. Then some number of them will have the protein coagulate and develop into some form of living organism. And some of those rudimentary life forms will become more complex. Etcetera.

And one day, in the far flung future of the universe, one of those increasingly complex life forms will develop the ability to debate its own origin.

I mean, the universe is a really really big place, you know?
Logged
President Bartlet: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Do you know why?

Will Bailey: Because that's the only thing that ever has.

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2008, 08:49:08 AM »

"hey, a big bang means there was a beginning, or mythology also says there was a beginning, holy shit our mythology was right! in your face!" Of course, by their reckoning, so were a few other mythologies. Creation myths are a dime a dozen, yo.

Wow... the fucking EYE thing again? This is a weak argument on its face, but the fact that its actually demonstrably contrafactual makes it pathetic.

No. According to ONE mathematician. Bill fucking Dembski, borrowing heavily from the mathematical contributions of Adam Douglas.

2) First of all, that is a gross mischaracterization of the Cambrian explosion. Second, WTF is it with fetishizing dead scientists? Darwin was not the only man studying this shit in his own time, and it's been like, 2 centuries! Science changes over time - theories are tested, new evidence is discovered, better understandings are achieved. Whole fucking point of science, really. Missed! Third, there's been a lot of interesting workany such claims. on this, and you would be well served to read up on it. Kind of unfair to hit an HS bio teacher with this, though - bio is a freshman/sophomore class, generally, and doesn't get much more advanced than king phillip came over for good spaghetti.

3) Because they are poorly written pastiche designed to get past the sensibilities of some Texan mongoloids whose better-off cousins got them spots on the purchasing board? But the point would be that biologists, and the science of biology generally, do NOT make any such claims.

4) A question better asked of textbook editors. My textbook did cover this, at some point, as I clearly recall what this refers to. I doubt a discussion of the accuracy of Haeckel's illustrations is appropriate to early bio courses, though.

I mean, I could go on, but your sources frankly suck ass. Try again.
Do me a favor Dave, please keep this civil. I am trying not to be nasty in my posts but this post is full of some pretty nasty comments. If it makes you so angry that someone actually has an alternate theory with some valid points then you need to look at why it makes you so mad. There is as much valid science backing both theories. Each theory takes science fact and tries to fit it into their belief system. At least those of us who believe in God are man enough to admit it! Argue the points but try to keep from insulting peoples faith if you can. If you can show where I am wrong in these points I will listen. If Evolution is such a fact, this should be easy for you. And Paul, just saying that "Well the universe is so big, it negates the probability is just silly. If you believe that the Universe is expanding, it was much smaller when evolution on Earth was supposed to have taken place, therefore reducing your arguement significantly. Even with this, the chances that the right conditions to make life come about are rediculously high. Then for such complex creatures to have developed from these one celled organisms in such a short amount of time (even if you believe it was 13 Billion years) is equally astronomical. The numbers are still staggeringly out of balance.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2008, 09:02:01 AM by Mack Ravensline »
Logged

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2008, 12:43:22 PM »

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/304/243/
Recent Red shift experiments show that we are not only in a finite Universe, but that we are near the center of that Universe. If someone were to assume that this is the center of the Universe, the red shifts would show that the Universe is less than 100,000 years old
http://www.icr.org/recent-universe/
You asked for why some scientists believe that this planet and the Universe it is the center of is thought to be less than 100,000 years old. This is another reason.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/2946/245/
This shows a problem with the aging universe theory.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1842/245/
This is more evidence of a young world.

Sorry I have to post this a little at a time, but there are alot of resourses on this subject and many of them are text book sized resourses. It is taking alot of time to do this research to post with sources and such. I will continue as long as people care in the slightest, and since I have started I want to get the info for myself anyway, just have a finite amount of time.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2008, 12:47:48 PM by Mack Ravensline »
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2008, 01:15:46 PM »

Do me a favor Dave, please keep this civil. I am trying not to be nasty in my posts but this post is full of some pretty nasty comments.

Your sources suck ass. Entirely not my fault. William Dembski should be laughed off the face of the earth, and the evolution of the eye is an argument leading ID propagandists are moving away from because it's actually pretty clear how that would have happened. I think what irks me most about the crap you posted was that not only is it bullshit, but a lot of it is old bullshit that even the assholes who made it up in the first place have given up on because it just doesn't stand up to any kind of review. The state of textbooks in our country right now is pretty sad, for all subjects, due in large part to block purchasing by large states, and Texas is the biggest of swinging dicks in the purchasing of textbooks. Whole separate deal, but I suppose I should retract my mongoloid comment, on the grounds that it's offensive to developmentally disabled persons everywhere to be compared with Texan textbook review boards.

Any others I missed? You can cuss back a lil bit, won't bother me any. I think I'm giving this bullshit exactly the right level of respect - none at all.


There is as much valid science backing both theories.

THIS IS A LIE. IT IS NOT TRUE.

Each theory takes science fact and tries to fit it into their belief system.

THIS IS A LIE. IT IS NOT TRUE.

The scientific method is a process, not a belief strucure, for fuck's sake.

At least those of us who believe in God are man enough to admit it! Argue the points but try to keep from insulting peoples faith if you can.

This is pretty much bullshit. There is no scientific conspiracy to deny the truth - there is no belief system of evo devo biologists or even of atheists (groups which overlap only in part).

And faith has no place in the scientific - faith necessitates a belief in that which cannot be subjected to scientific investigation. It falls outside the discussion.

If you can show where I am wrong in these points I will listen. If Evolution is such a fact, this should be easy for you.

What points have you even made? You've quoted propaganda websites that do not base their few actual claims on anything resembling facts. Make a point, and I'll let you know if it's right, wrong, or otherwise.

Even with this, the chances that the right conditions to make life come about are rediculously high. Then for such complex creatures to have developed from these one celled organisms in such a short amount of time (even if you believe it was 13 Billion years) is equally astronomical. The numbers are still staggeringly out of balance.

The probability of of something happening BEFORE it happens, is a lot different than the probability that it happened AFTER it happened. Once it happened, the probability is 1 - it DID happen. I find it awful strange that so much of the supposed science involved in the ID movement is in math, more particularly in stats and information theory. You'd think a group of people hell bent on discrediting and disproving the accepted standards of biological science would have hired a few more biologists - particularly students of evolutionary development.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2008, 01:31:02 PM »

http://www.icr.org/recent-universe/

I got two paragraphs in and read the words "this imaginary cloud is called the Oort cloud". And I see we're back to thinly veiled geocentrism?

Loving this quote "While it is possible to make assumptions beyond what can be observed and verified, the heavens continue to bear witness to recent creation." LMFAO. :)
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

carl

  • Board Gaming Staff
  • Senior Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2008, 02:20:35 PM »

The problem is that the groups didn't really get any good mathematicians for their stats either, so even the math and stats arguments are badly skewed. GIGO
Best,
Carl
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."  - Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
Logged

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2008, 08:51:42 AM »

Any others I missed? You can cuss back a lil bit, won't bother me any. I think I'm giving this bullshit exactly the right level of respect - none at all.
Again it seems to me like you are just a little kid who is kicking and screaming when his world view is challenged. Instead of actually posting something showing where these things have actually been shown to be false as you claim, you just say that it is wrong.  I will try to place debate points out there. What are you afraid of when it comes to civil debate. If you do not like what is posted show it to be wrong. Remember many scientists maintained that the world was flat at one time. Now people erroniously believe we evolved from apes. Same difference.
THIS IS A LIE. IT IS NOT TRUE.

THIS IS A LIE. IT IS NOT TRUE.

The scientific method is a process, not a belief strucure, for fuck's sake.

This is pretty much bullshit. There is no scientific conspiracy to deny the truth - there is no belief system of evo devo biologists or even of atheists (groups which overlap only in part).

And faith has no place in the scientific - faith necessitates a belief in that which cannot be subjected to scientific investigation. It falls outside the discussion.
Really? It seems to me that instead of actually debating facts, you and many other evolutionist would rather try to discredit something simply because it goes against your Belief system that there is no God. Most early Evolutionists began promoting this theory primarily because they felt there must be scientific ways to show there is no God. Over and over facts have been fudged, theories that have no basis in fact put forth, etc, in a simple effort to try to show that man came about by sheer accident. They come up with theories based on little more than closed system observations and statements like "It must be so because we know this(which they really don't know, but it is the accepted way). So much junk science that has since been discredited has been made up simply to cover flaws in the evolutionary theory. The calibration of the Carbon dating is based not on fact since it is inaccurate by admittance for anything less than 10,000 years old. Red shift evidence is calibrated based on the assumption that we are far from the center of the Universe. Though it has never been seen, adding to the genetic code is simply assumed. They have made multiple excuses for the lack of fossil record. They have made several excuses for the lack of silt on the ocean floor. They have never explained the lack of transitional forms. The questions that have been simply glossed over by clever men who simply want to believe it is impossible for there to be a God, but it is far from proof. If you believe something hard enough you can come up with plausible sounding theories even when not backed by proof or a mathematical formula that shows how it could happen, and that same faith will allow blind people like you to not bother to question anything and simply accept that Crap as fact.
What points have you even made? You've quoted propaganda websites that do not base their few actual claims on anything resembling facts. Make a point, and I'll let you know if it's right, wrong, or otherwise.
I have presented many flaws in Evolution that back my claim it is merely a theory, and not even a very good one, but you just want to not answer those questions, all you want to do is say NOT TRUE. What good is that?
The probability of of something happening BEFORE it happens, is a lot different than the probability that it happened AFTER it happened. Once it happened, the probability is 1 - it DID happen. I find it awful strange that so much of the supposed science involved in the ID movement is in math, more particularly in stats and information theory. You'd think a group of people hell bent on discrediting and disproving the accepted standards of biological science would have hired a few more biologists - particularly students of evolutionary development.
There are alot of Scientists working on this, and evolution is only accepted because scientist want so desperately for it to be true, so they ignore the glaring problems with the THEORY.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2008, 11:13:30 AM by Mack Ravensline »
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Intelligent Design
« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2008, 11:28:12 AM »

Again it seems to me like you are just a little kid who is kicking and screaming when his world view is challenged.

The problem here is that you're ridiculously ignorant about the topics you want to discuss, and because I don't have formal training in the relevant fields (I'm more of a science fanboy) or in education, I'm just not sure it's worth the effort (of developing the necessary core of knowledge and the skills to pass it on) to go back set you straight. You're obviously not interested in doing the reading yourself. Wikipedia has some very good articles on all of this. So would most traditional encyclopedias. I imagine so would most relevant textbooks. I'll bet you have a public library nearby that could get you started.

The scientific method, basically, and more generally science, is about taking observations, forming (TESTABLE!) hypotheses to explain these observations, and then performing the necessary tests, and repeating this process until you have a hypothesis that is born out by testing. Then you've got your theory (scientific sense of the word). Generally you want one that cannot be plausibly explained by another answer, and one that stands up to repeated testing over time.

The thing is, damnably curious fuckers that humans are, we keep coming up with new ways to collect information - more sensitive instruments, better techniques, etc. So what seemed to make sense before, may actually not fit the facts once you can finally see the next layer down (case in point: determinism). So then you have to rethink it, and come up with a better explanation that takes into account the new data. You don't normally toss out the old explanation as soon as you have new data - you try to reconcile the two, or to find the reasons why the old one was wrong. If it was flatly and completely wrong, then you drop it and move on. That's hard - people do get tied up in their beliefs and their egos, but its rare when a demonstrably wrong scientific theory hangs around for centuries and centuries despite adequate data to do it in. The reason this doesn't generally happen is that within a generation or two you get a new crop of bright young researchers who have no investment in the older order and and are quite willing to run with the new information and come up with a better explanation.

That's NOT thrashing around, blindly clinging to faith, desperately grasping and any justification to cling to a flawed belief system. That's the work of generations to better humankind. and your gross mischaracterization of same is kinda irritating.

Instead of actually posting something showing where these things have actually been shown to be false as you claim, you just say that it is wrong.

Because it is. Really.

It seems to me that instead of actually debating facts,

But like I was saying, the problem is that you're not presenting any facts! You're presenting various claims and statements that have no basis in fact, and are generally based on either mischaracterization or misunderstandings of facts, and calling those facts. If you're doing that to be disingenuous, then fuck off. If you're doing it out of ignorance, then it's really on you to stop being an ignorant putz and go get some learnin. Not trying to be a dick about it, but that's just not my job.

That you can stand there, brazenly and obviously ignorant on so many topics, spout bullshit and claim that it has the same weight as centuries of human scientific development, and DEMAND that others take the time to educate you (disingenuously, because you're not even interested in learning, you believe you're right and nothing will change your mind), is unconscionable.

you and many other evolutionist would rather try to discredit something simply because it goes against your Belief system that there is no God.

What belief system, exactly, do I have again? This is news to me.

  Most early Evolutionists began promoting this theory primarily because they felt there were scientific ways to show there is no God. Over and over facts have been fudged, theories that have no basis in fact put forth, etc, in a simple effort to try to show that man came about by sheer accident.

While this is absolutely not true of the scientific community generally, it is demonstrably and specifically true of the entire ID movement.

So much junk science that has since been discredited has been made up simply to cover flaws in the evolutionary theory.

I'd like some examples, please.

The calibration of the Carbon dating is based not on fact since it is inaccurate by admittance for anything less than 10,000 years old.

Again with the carbon dating! You do not know what you are talking about! Do some real research on this, and after doing the reading, if you still feel that radiocarbon dating is totally useless for longer term dating and that its failure to be useful is evidence of creation, then I'm going to need you to explain.

Red shift evidence is calibrated based on the assumption that we are far from the center of the Universe.

The assumption that we are at or near the center of the universe is based on which evidence, then? I mean, WTF, do you think all of science is a big conspiracy against religion? The current best explanation, of the current best data, rules for as long as it IS the best explanation. Then it dies, fast or slow, hard or easy, it dies.

For a fairly simple demonstration of why the whole "red shift shows we're in the middle" thing is bullshit:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/hubble/tools/center.html

Basically, no matter where you are, it LOOKS like you're in the middle. It's an illusion, like a stick bending in water. Since you know the stick doesn't bend, you have to adjust the data your eye presents you with the understanding of how light is refracted through various media, and if you know enough about the stick, the water, and the physics involved, you can create a pretty accurate reconstruction of what is actually happening, even though your EYE still tells you the stick is bending.

Though it has never been seen, adding to the genetic code is simply assumed.

This is... at best, a misunderstanding of the science involved. Try Google. Look up some of Knight's work on the topic. Follow the footnotes, gain some familiarity.

They have made multiple excuses for the lack of fossil record.

Which excuses are you referring to? Because if this is more mischaracterization-of-scientific-advance-as-excuse-making, then I'm about done.

They have made several excuses for the lack of silt on the ocean floor.

I'm unfamiliar with this one. Explain?

They have never explained the lack of transitional forms.

Which lack are you referring to?

The questions that have been simply glossed over by clever men who simply want to believe it is impossible for there to be a God, but it is far from proof.

Except, they haven't been "glossed over", but rather researched extensively. Of course, in the one hand, you've got "god did it" explaining everything, so I guess that makes it easy, but on the other hand, you've got geology, astronomy, biology, and oceanography (among other fields) all being discussed, and it's hard to be an expert in one of those fields, much less all.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up