Well that seals it for me. The vatican and pat robertson can’t be wrong.
BTW did anyone see the idiotic statements made by pat robertson about the good people of Dover PA?
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
where’s pookie?[/quote]
I think he might be out back clubbing a Christian to death…In the name of open mindedness of course.
[quote]DA MAN wrote:
“Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.”
-wholly inaccurate.
[/quote]
This needs to be clarified. Intelligent design is a statistical theory which has nothing to do with “higher intelligence.” It was originally developed as a method of analyzing radio signals, and potential archaological artifacts to determine if their pattern was likely to be random or designed (by an intelligent being) ie a person or alien.
Now it is being applied to the universe as a whole to determine if it could have been random.
Several problems exist:
-
It is still an INFANT statistical theory which is years away from being truly useful even to meet its original purposes.
-
Those people who apply it to the universe to suggest that life could not have arisen randomly use physical and chemical models which are many orders of magnitude off from what has been established by science.
For example, I read in one source that even if there were millions of molecular collisions per day on earth, the probability of building a DNA stand would be 10^-87.
In fact, simple modelling reveals that there are approximately 10^49 molecular collisions on earth per second, not simply “millions per day”. It also pre-supposes that DNA does not arise from a simpler template molecule which has LONG been the scientific hypothesis. -
Intelligent design applied to evolution accept ALL of the observables of the the theory of evolution and the geologic record. These observables are then used to develop a model and then show the statistical unlikeliness of the model. In other words, the state of Kansas has just mandated the teaching of the current textbook model of historical geology!
In fact, to paraphrase from the original ID source, ID invloves two steps:
-
Developing a model of how something came into existence (in this case, geological history and natural selection).
-
Determining the statistical probability of that ACCEPTED model having taken place by chance alone-and doing so independently of the model itself (in other words, you can’t use the fact that life arose in estimating the statistical probability of life arising).
So the ID model of evolution STARTS with the presupposition that evolution took place according to the current model. Then (by using such ridiculosities as the “millions of collisions a day”) it concludes that evolution could not have taken place without intelligent “non-random” guidance.
Anyway, I believe the universe was designed intelligently by God and that that is self evident-so obvious that it is blinding to many, but ID does not produce ANY observables (ie science) that are different than non-ID evolution and historical geology, and the asanine, apparently intentionally deceptive statistical examples used by ID proponents are, well, asanine and apparently intentionally deceptive. I mean, no scientist can be that stupid.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
At one time the Vatican proclaimed the earth was flat…[/quote]
They never did. Not even close. The pope said that at that particular time it could not be taught that the earth went around the sun.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Anyway, I believe the universe was designed intelligently by God and that that is self evident-so obvious that it is blinding to many, but ID does not produce ANY observables (ie science) that are different than non-ID evolution and historical geology, and the asanine, apparently intentionally deceptive statistical examples used by ID proponents are, well, asanine and apparently intentionally deceptive. I mean, no scientist can be that stupid.
[/quote]
LMAO, how is the universe being intelligently designed “so obvious that it’s blinding”? And if you’re going to use the word asinine, you might want to spell it right, otherwise you look, well, asinine.
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
LMAO, how is the universe being intelligently designed “so obvious that it’s blinding”? And if you’re going to use the word asinine, you might want to spell it right, otherwise you look, well, asinine.[/quote]
Way to get off the topic of 80+% of my post. My only point about my belief was that despite the fact that I believe the universe to be intelligently designed, I deny that “intelligent design theory” has any place in science or science classes. I guess its just easier to skip to the end.
If you want to get into specifics of the obvious evidence it includes such examples as that the mammalian structural eye genes exist completely intact in the nematode DNA even though nematodes eyes only utilize 10-20% of that genetic material for their eye structure.
Many genes for skeletal mineralization
are present in bacteria even though no bacteria uses or benefits from this gene.
Still, not my point.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
If you want to get into specifics of the obvious evidence it includes such examples as that the mammalian structural eye genes exist completely intact in the nematode DNA even though nematodes eyes only utilize 10-20% of that genetic material for their eye structure.
[/quote]
LMAO again. Oh man, nice ‘blindingly obvious’ example. How does that prove that we were intelligently designed?
Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm. Also the human genome is 90-95% useless sequences, many of which resemble functional genes. So nematodes also have non-functional DNA which resembles that present in humans…I really don’t see how that relates to intelligent design at all. Maybe you could elaborate a little bit?
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
If you want to get into specifics of the obvious evidence it includes such examples as that the mammalian structural eye genes exist completely intact in the nematode DNA even though nematodes eyes only utilize 10-20% of that genetic material for their eye structure.
LMAO again. Oh man, nice ‘blindingly obvious’ example. How does that prove that we were intelligently designed?
Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm. Also the human genome is 90-95% useless sequences, many of which resemble functional genes. So nematodes also have non-functional DNA which resembles that present in humans…I really don’t see how that relates to intelligent design at all. Maybe you could elaborate a little bit? [/quote]
I told you that its not provable. If it were, it would be part of science. The example doesn’t prove anything either, but to clarify, its not that the nematode genes resemble mammalian genes, its that when embreyos of genetically eyeless mice received transplanted nematode eye genes, the mice grew mice eyes when the gene interacted with the mice genome.
Whether you believe in God or not, that’s pretty amazing I think.
Ahahahaha.
Pookie, you missed one!
No, most people do not understand scientific ideas. How many scientfic articles are printed in newspapers? Compared to other types of articles, not very many. How many newspapers have science editors? Few.
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm. [/quote]
Humans share approximately 8-9% of their genes with nematode worms.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
If you want to get into specifics of the obvious evidence it includes such examples as that the mammalian structural eye genes exist completely intact in the nematode DNA even though nematodes eyes only utilize 10-20% of that genetic material for their eye structure.
Many genes for skeletal mineralization
are present in bacteria even though no bacteria uses or benefits from this gene.
Still, not my point. [/quote]
I’m probably missing the point on this one, but if an organism has a bunch of genes that are useless to it, how is that proof of “intelligent” design. I mean if we were designed by God or whatever, why’d He give us all this useless shit?
I’m also aware of some flaws with evolutionary theory(such as the lack of fossil records of transitionary species).
So, it might be best for both sides to be presented objectively in schools and let the kids figure out what they believe based on that information.
About the transition species:
Imagine a junkyard that’s been in use for hundreds of years. You’d find lots of horse drawn carriages, and above that strata you’d find lots of automobiles.
How many “horseless carriages” would you find? Not very many. See what I’m getting at?
[quote]RedEye wrote:
About the transition species:
Imagine a junkyard that’s been in use for hundreds of years. You’d find lots of horse drawn carriages, and above that strata you’d find lots of automobiles.
How many “horseless carriages” would you find? Not very many. See what I’m getting at?[/quote]
-I do, but at the same time, the automobile didn’t evolve from the horse-drawn carriage, per say. It was a distinct invention. Even if you do consider it an evolution, the process occurred over a pretty short period of time, evolution doesn’t.
Hey, I only know enough about this to get me in trouble, so I don’t want to sound like a know it all. I’m just saying teach both sides of the argument and let the student decide. I don’t however think they should both be taught in science class, or at least not by the same biased teacher.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
I’m also aware of some flaws with evolutionary theory(such as the lack of fossil records of transitionary species).
[/quote]
No such flaws, only in the mind of creationists. They repeat that lie over and over again to mislead people, and they are obviously doing a good job.
The problem is that creatioism (intelligent design) is not a science, it is religion. That is why letting it on a biology classroom is wrong. If they teach it on a course in comparative religion, then great, but not in a science course.
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
No, most people do not understand scientific ideas. How many scientfic articles are printed in newspapers? Compared to other types of articles, not very many. How many newspapers have science editors? Few. [/quote]
Just to expand on what you said – how many people understand the theory of evolution? Not many.
After graduating from high school, the only evolutionary concept I had been exposed to was evolution by natural selection. I had to wait until college to learn about such concepts as mico & macroevolution, speciation, genetics, genetic drift, etc.
aaaaAAAAAAAAHHH!!!
Oh no! Another evolution vs. creationism thread!!! Kill it!! 
[quote]ramses wrote:
The problem is that creatioism (intelligent design) is not a science, it is religion. That is why letting it on a biology classroom is wrong. If they teach it on a course in comparative religion, then great, but not in a science course.[/quote]
First of all, Intelligent design fundamentally has nothing to do with theism or creationism. It has been misappropriated for that use. Nobody in the state of Kansas even knows what Intelligent design really means-which is simply that it is possible in principle to identify an object-such as an artifact or radio signal-as having an intelligent source.
In fact, if you want to get technical, Intelligent design theory (which is a sound, but undeveloped STATISTICAL theory) has concluded that the universe can NOT be attributed to an intelligent creator with any more likelyhood than that it had an non-intelligent origin.
Another interesting thing to me is what Kansas voters did, when many of the voters in Kansas are “Young earth creationists” or even believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Even Intelligent design theory, misappropriately used in the evolutionary setting, is absolutely opposed to a young earth or a literal Genesis.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
First of all, Intelligent design fundamentally has nothing to do with theism or creationism. [/quote]
Not according to what’s coming out of the Dover trial. Everyone one should read the transcripts of it, which are availible online. That’s one reason I left the last forum on this subject. I realized no one here really has the facts.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
First of all, Intelligent design fundamentally has nothing to do with theism or creationism.
Not according to what’s coming out of the Dover trial. Everyone one should read the transcripts of it, which are availible online. That’s one reason I left the last forum on this subject. I realized no one here really has the facts. [/quote]
What I’m referring to is the original statistical theory of intelligent design, which I have read from the original source. The only thing that that theory says is that in principle, given a complete model of how something developed, AND a complete understanding of all of the physical laws that led to its creation (pardon the term) it is possible to statistically conclude that it is likely to have an intelligent origin.
Now, all we have to do is have a PERFECT model of evolution (which we don’t as we are discovering non-darwinian mechanisms all the time) and have a complete understanding of ALL the laws of physics that led to life! Well, if you know all of those I suspect you don’t need to prove that God exists because you would have to be God.