Intelligent design isn't science

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hegamboa

Correct for the most part.... "unguided evolution" rejects the notion that life was designed....

What you define as "evolution" is what I call adaptation; and this includes the phenotypic richness contained in the genes that were 'originally' given to a species "after it's own kind".

---

The boundaries used to define speciation are arbitrary and man-made. Our taxonomy is flawed in that it attempts to cram the sprawling diversity of life into a handful of levels. It is just a tool.

Some have tried to simplify it into saying that a species is a species if it can reproduce with offspring than can reproduce, but even that is an oversimplification. Take, for example, the widespread hybridization of Texas live oaks.

I think we can declare with some certainty that the biblical model of taxonomy is not meant to be scientifically binding in that it lists the bat as a type of bird.

One then can attribute to God as expansive a number of "kinds" as one likes, depending on one's theology. His "kinds" do not necessarily correspond to our man-made taxonomy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

It's funny because you're arguing against something that you say i am saying. What is the point of having a blog at all if you can read our minds and know full and well what we believe and want to say before we've even said it!
In fact, im pretty sure you already knew I was goign to say this too, huh!

---

Your inability to articulate is not my problem.

I can't wait for the next exciting conclusion you come up with based on what I didn't say.

cbf youre talking to someone who said liberals hated vacations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

cbf youre talking to someone who said liberals hated vacations.

---

I've realized that liberals do like to go on vacations as long as they can feel guilty about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

well TX used to have trees but they were no longer serving their purpose, so they evolved into Longneck beers. And God said beer was good. And on the seventh day, God said everybody must drink at least 6 beers. Hence, Saturday has become the day for beer-drinking.

---

What god said that?

Does Victoria strengthen or weaken the arguments for intelligent design?

Con: Would an intelligent God really create a place like that?

Pro: An intelligent, organized God just shoves all the crap over in one place.

You're funnier when you make pompous statements based on false assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

Naturally that all depends upon circular reasoning. One has to accept the authority of the Biblical account in order to follow your logic. And if one accepts Biblical authority, then there would be no dispute about the existence of God.

---

Did you see how much 'credibility' I used in the bible for said analysis...
10^-10......

There is enough historical credibility to support 'certain' events in the bible... of course not all of them can be proven.

For example, an archeological dig uncovered two Philistine temples in 1908 (*or 1925 I can't remember the date). Anyway, being the first temples of their kind to be discovered the archeologist immediately noticed a unique architectural feature not seen in other structures; there were two massive columns in the center of the temple that supported the weight of the entire structure.

From the biblical story of Samson we are told that Samson asked a servant to lead him to the the central pillars of the temple during a "party" (his eyes had been gouged out). He then used his strength to buckle the pillars and in doing so, "killed more Philistines in his death, than he had while he was alive."

Of course people will believe what they choose to believe so.... in the end... this analysis was only used to illustrate the magnitude of the number we were dealing with..... (i.e. the probability of "unguided" origin for life)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

What god said that?

---

Vishnu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody

What god said that?

---

Jeebus said, "Verily I say unto thee, yonder tree, that if thou dost not bear fruit, then shall I strike thee dead."

And the tree bore not fruit, and thusly dead was struck. Then Lot looked back from himself upon the tree, and immediately thereof was turned into a pillar of salt. And the tree was turned into a specimen tall brown glass, broad wherein the roots once were, and tapered atop the point from which once limbs with their leaves of shade had branched, which even unto today holdeth ounces numbering twelve.

Then came the terrible swarm of locusts, for God was angry with righteous wrath against South Texas because they had incurred it.

And the bitterness of their travails was forever captured in the bitterness of the hops.

Yet though the trees had not borne fruit, yet had the grasses born grain.

The next day Jeebus partook of a wedding in Beeville, and even as the hosts had been exhausted of sangria. So Jeebus took unto fruit of the grains and the hops, and verily turned water into beer. And he said, "Drink, for this is my beer, brewed for you."

And we drink today in the tall brown glass bottles, in remembrance of tree.

Yes!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hegamboa

Did you see how much 'credibility' I used in the bible for said analysis...
10^-10......

There is enough historical credibility to support 'certain' events in the bible... of course not all of them can be proven.

Of course people will believe what they choose to believe so.... in the end... this analysis was only used to illustrate the magnitude of the number we were dealing with..... (i.e. the probability of "unguided" origin for life)...

---

OK, fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

You're funnier when you make pompous statements based on false assumptions.

---

Everybody was starting to arrive at a consensus. It's un-American for opposing sides to find common ground, so I had to stir it up by throwing in a nice juicy ad hominem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by velik_m

And how did this creator came to be? Did he come from infinite nothingness?

---

Hey, one freakin' question at a time! No one demanded Darwin explain how life came into being before adopting his theory of natural selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Hey, one freakin' question at a time! No one demanded Darwin explain how life came into being before adopting his theory of natural selection.

---

:lol

i just post the question to make you see that intelligent creator is no more (or less for that matter) sensible than creation from nothing... anyway we're moving off topic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by velik_m

:lol

i just post the question to make you see that intelligent creator is no more (or less for that matter) sensible than creation from nothing... anyway we're moving off topic...

---

I'm increasingly reminded of the early fears over nuclear detonations; that they would start a chain reaction that would consume everything.

Maybe that's what happened several billion years ago. Some putz in a basement laboratory started messing with shit he had no business messing with and BOOM - the Big Bang.

Really, that's the only logical conclusion. ;)

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bs/2005/bs051230.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bs/2005/bs051230.gif

---

Really.... ID is not all philosophical or meta-physical... It does have scientific merit whether you choose to accept it or not....

It poses a question which the theory does not have to answer... And the validity of "the question" is supported by mathematical analyses, and observations which conflict with many evolutionary principles.

People want to keep ID out of the classroom simply because an implication to the possible existence of a higher power "should not be discussed." Unfortunately, "an intelligent designer" enters the realm of the unprovable... at least by any physical means. And so much like "evolution," inferences have to be made to explain the complexity of what we observe today. Those who claim "evolution" makes no inferences should study the fossil record... or for that matter read about the countless genetic experiments concerning the genome of fruit flies who despite thousands and thousands of iterative breeding and radiation tinkerings... have remained, to their avail... well... fruit flies.

Does this mean we should not question the subject of origins??? NO, that there would stifle further investigation to this intriguing question.... CBF claims that IDers want to start the Dark Ages again.... but I believe the contrary to be the case. The scientific progress train is moving way too fast for anything or anyone to slow it down. CBF needs to understand that "money" is the lure behind science now a days... not humanitarian concerns, or peace.... much less religious 'bragging rights.' Religion, I will concede, only interferes with science when ethical barriers are being crossed; such as the killing of fetus' to obtain stem cells that can be obtained in less quantity, but obtained nonetheless, from other sources...

But really, if this 'stem-cell' research was being done in the interest of humanitarian aid, wouldn't a national or international task team be set up to gather the most knowledgable minds to conduct the research... At that point, they could use the stem cells that can be retrieved from 'non harmful' methods, and there would be sufficient stem cells to go around....

But no, the research is being done competitively with these 'minds' scattered all over the place and all for the sake of being the first to come up with a new lucrative method to counteract degenerative nervous system diseases, etc... Again, the task is being driven by the lure of 'money' or else the effort itself would not be diluted across the world. Anyways, sometimes critics of "organized religion" fail to see this picture whenever they jump on the "religion is opposed to progress" bandwaggon. And it never ceases to amaze me how much of their charitable work is overlooked... The Southern Baptist Convention for example sent about as much aid and food to the tsunami affected areas last year as the Red Cross organization... yet they didn't seek the publicity or recieve recognition... Instead they are constantly bashed as dogmatic self-indulgers... sigh...

To CBF's credit, the Catholic Church of the middle ages was a bunch of baloney... and I will never dispute their own hinderance of scientific progress during ~A.D 800 to A.D. 1500. Notice however that another religion during this time contributed to the fields of science, medicine and art during their own "golden era".... Islam... as ironic as that may sound. They have since taken another, super conservative stance with regards to scientific progress... Those darned extremist Shi'ites!!!

Anyway...

What you are failing to realize is that since the dawn of mankind we have always had roadblocks of knowledge and questions with no answer and every step of the way we have always had the option of slapping on the word "god" as the reason, or cause.

If we fucking did what you claim is "science" about 1000 years ago we'd still be barbaric, farming, stone house dwelling savages.

Why do people like you think that our knowledge of existence is at its peak right now? What makes you think the year 2005 is so fucking special? Its fucking idiotic to stick god into science and noone has said anything to merit god being scientific other than very very low odds of random creation.


Intelligent Design will never gain scientific merit because the smartest people of our race realize how fucking stupid it is.

If people like you won over society a long time ago we'd be in the stone age still.

Ban me from spurstalk and I'll get a tattoo of the word "homosexual" across my forehead if Intelligent Design ever gains global scientific merit.


We, as a race, have yet to discover anything, we are still scratching the surface of what is out there.

To be so incredibly pompous as to think we've already advanced as far as possible and that the only logical scientific option left is to say "okay god created it" is STUPID.

It is possible, but that is the extent of its merit. You can't prove a god by disproving random creation. Why do you think that God is the only other option? Think outside of the box. That's what fuckign science is about.
Not being a retard and sayign "drrrr i guess god is responsible duuuhhhh"


Look up "church of the giant spaghetti monster" on wikipedia. It's a mockery of ID, that has just as much scientific merit. Why isn't this theory being taught in school?

The only thing you consider 'scientific' about ID is that it can't be shown as false.
But think about all the things in this world that cannot be shown as false.

BTW, hegamboa, i agree alot of science is motivated by money and not progress of the human race, but there is also some that is motivated by progress too. Quantum Physics, early Space Exploration come to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

Look up "church of the giant spaghetti monster" on wikipedia. It's a mockery of ID, that has just as much scientific merit. Why isn't this theory being taught in school?

---

From the Wikipedia article:

All the prayers end in "Ramen" instead of "Amen" :lol

I send my kids to religious education classes at Church.

:spin its actually pretty entertaining to read up on it.

In fact, a clean-slate mind might even find it more a convincing argument than ID.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

What you are failing to realize is that since the dawn of mankind we have always had roadblocks of knowledge and questions with no answer and every step of the way we have always had the option of slapping on the word "god" as the reason, or cause.

If we fucking did what you claim is "science" about 1000 years ago we'd still be barbaric, farming, stone house dwelling savages.

Why do people like you think that our knowledge of existence is at its peak right now? What makes you think the year 2005 is so fucking special? Its fucking idiotic to stick god into science and noone has said anything to merit god being scientific other than very very low odds of random creation.


Intelligent Design will never gain scientific merit because the smartest people of our race realize how fucking stupid it is.

If people like you won over society a long time ago we'd be in the stone age still.

---

That is the same argument that has been made against miracles. Miracles are events that outside our understanding of the way the world operates. These events would occur and we couldn't explain them, so they would be labeled as "miracles." As we gain understanding of our surroundings, many of the "miracles" are suddenly explained.

I guess there is always a need to resort to the supernatural when phenomena cannot be explained. Probably because we need immediate explanantions and cannot wait for science to develop enough to provide an answer.