Intelligent Design

[rossum]

Indeed.
Survival of the sexiest.

But then we have to ask ourselves why it is holding at 1%?
Why aren’t we getting mor redheads?

The natural selection/evolution theory tells me that a trait is either coming or going.
This one is not.

The subject is called population genetics. If you want an answer then study it. Don’t bother looking on ID websites, they won’t cover it. Look on good biological websites. As usual. ID has nothing while biology has the answers.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This is rich.

Hey everyone…facts change.
But not just any facts, the PROVEN ones too.

What a fantastical world we describe.

Was Newton’s theory of gravity ‘proven fact’? Newton was shown to be wrong.

Science has its own specialised vocabulary. If you don’t understand the vocabulary then you will think that “red herring” means “pink fish” and fall into error.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I think that Miller and Urey were able to generate a few amino acids with all their intelligently designed equipment, but no one in science has ever generated life from nonlife.

I think that ID proponents haven’t been able to get their designer to generate any amino acids at all. No one in ID has ever got their designer to generate life from non-life.

So far science is a few chiral amino acids ahead. ID is lagging behind because their designer hasn’t been able to do anything in the lab at all yet.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Make your best argument that rocks being arranged to spell out SOS does not have an intelligent agent behind it.

First the S. Here are some sidewinder snake tracks:
http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/28/2891/9YCPD00Z.jpg

Second the O. Here is an O:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

A sidewinding snake crossed a beach. Afterwards a small meteorite hit in the middle of the snake track. SOS.

Now you tell me how likely it is that your intelligent designer exists. We know that sidewinding snakes exist. We know that meteorites make circles. Where is your evidence of your intelligent designer?

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum
**
Was Newton’s theory of gravity ‘proven fact’? Newton was shown to be wrong.**

If Newton was shown to be wrong, why did the Royal Society 5 years ago vote him the greatest scientist who ever lived, even greater than Einstein?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Yet again the complete failure of the ID side to show any equivalent experimental support is very very noticeable.

The real complete failure is in the ability to prove by experiment that life spontaneously arose by chance.

If you have the proof, let’s see it. Stop pussyfooting with Miller-Urey which proved nothing of the sort that you claim.

That’s what is very noticeable … the inability of science to produce life even under intelligently designed experiments of humans. So how in God’s name did it get produced by accident?

 

[buffalo]

First the S. Here are some sidewinder snake tracks:
http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/28/2891/9YCPD00Z.jpg

Second the O. Here is an O:

http://www.pibburns.com/catastro/metcratr.jpg

A sidewinding snake crossed a beach. Afterwards a small meteorite hit in the middle of the snake track. SOS.

Now you tell me how likely it is that your intelligent designer exists. We know that sidewinding snakes exist. We know that meteorites make circles. Where is your evidence of your intelligent designer?

rossum

You have failed. I stated specifically if you come across rocks arranged to spell SOS on the beach.

You should have put a smiley after it so it was clear you were joking.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum
**
Still no scientific evidence for ID I notice. Maybe Saddam Hussein hid it with all his WMDs?**

Or maybe it’s hidden in the same place where you hide the evidence for abiogenesis by chance.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Now you tell me how likely it is that your intelligent designer exists. We know that sidewinding snakes exist. We know that meteorites make circles. Where is your evidence of your intelligent designer?

Now in full retreat you have changed the terms of this thread. This thread is not about an intelligent designer. It is about intelligent design.

Stop cheating!

Even Darwin said you could be a theist and an evolutionist, and to say that you can’t is absurd.

Then even Darwin must have allowed the possibility of intelligent design, and an intelligent designer. Whether the Design is subject to scientific scrutiny is irrelevant. Intelligent design is. We can see intelligent design all around us and ought to be able to detect it when it is detectable.

 

[laszlo]

The intelligent design is a solid sientific theory that the evolution is God’s powerful Angel.

God created the matter and the rules as the matter is moving/changing. At certain points He interacts specifically. One of such points is the creation of the immortal human Soul.

This kid of view of the evolution was approved by Pius XII in the Humani Generis encyclical: evolution with interactions for God.

 

[buffalo]

The intelligent design is a solid sientific theory that the evolution is God’s powerful Angel.

God created the matter and the rules as the matter is moving/changing. At certain points He interacts specifically. One of such points is the creation of the immortal human Soul.

This kid of view of the evolution was approved by Pius XII in the Humani Generis encyclical: evolution with interactions for God.

But polygenism was not.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

So is yours. But theirs is defined and rigorous and testable. Yours is not.

What is testable? That abiogenesis happened by chance rather than design? Gee whiz, I missed that one!

kbachler, as a Catholic, do you believe that the Big Bang theory lends scientific support to the Creation even described in Genesis?

 

[tonyrey]

Billions of years is a long time versus a few decades in a lab, and makes up for a lot of directed energy. I don’t think it shows what you claim at all.

Given enough time - according to your argument - unreasoning, purposeless molecules can produce rational, purposeful beings!

 

[shoe]

I think that ID proponents haven’t been able to get their designer to generate any amino acids at all. No one in ID has ever got their designer to generate life from non-life.

So far science is a few chiral amino acids ahead. ID is lagging behind because their designer hasn’t been able to do anything in the lab at all yet.

rossum

In nature, proteins consist entirely of left-handed amino acids; but Miller and Urey’s experiment generated both left-handed and right-handed amino acids. And a right-handed amino acid attached to a protein structure would have very strange effects on it, some effects would even be fatal. Therefore, inside their man-designed laboratory, Miller and Urey actually made the wrong kind of amino acid, definitely not the building blocks for life. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment couldn’t even come up with a single biological protein.

 

[tonyrey]

rossum

In addition the power to design such experiments requires explanation in view of the apparent inability of combinations of amino acids to produce designers!
If they could do so Buddhism would become a redundant hypothesis…

 

[tonyrey]

I think that ID proponents haven’t been able to get their designer to generate any amino acids at all. No one in ID has ever got their designer to generate life from non-life.

So far science is a few chiral amino acids ahead. ID is lagging behind because their designer hasn’t been able to do anything in the lab at all yet.

The scientists’ power to design such experiments requires explanation in view of the apparent inability of multiple combinations of amino acids to produce designers!

If they could do so Buddhism would become a redundant hypothesis…

 

[StrawberryJam]

Intelligent Design is not winning any converts. It’s followers are ones who have already rejected science.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

So far science is a few chiral amino acids ahead. ID is lagging behind because their designer hasn’t been able to do anything in the lab at all yet.

And a huge quantum of probability behind!

 

[edwest2]

Hi folks,

Random randomness created something and it grew into us. I see nothing credible there. The math has been done. There are fewer atoms in the universe than the number required to create anything even once.

Intelligent Design works for one simple fact: we know that design requires a designer. Period.

Non-theists hope it was aliens, while Christians understand that the designer is God.

God said… not some guy in a lab coat.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hi folks,

Random randomness created something and it grew into us. I see nothing credible there. The math has been done. There are fewer atoms in the universe than the number required to create anything even once.

Intelligent Design works for one simple fact: we know that design requires a designer. Period.

Non-theists hope it was aliens, while Christians understand that the designer is God.

God said… not some guy in a lab coat.

Peace,
Ed

Are Jack Chick’s Eviloution tracts this widespread?