"More and more scientists are starting to believe in intelligent design."

[sandorski]

It's funny - when the statement says scientists are leaning towards ID - that the majority of responders assume that it means 'God' - hell - ID can encompass anything from God to various form of Aliens / Alien life - since it is possible some meteor could have had alien bacteria that just mutated everything... that is just being far fetched as I wonder why people assume ID is always God to each scientist that leans that way... granted - a lot of it is - but still... assumptions.

It is assumed, because Creationists came up with it when Creationism became indefensible. ID is just a new wrapping on Creationism.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

It is assumed, because Creationists came up with it when Creationism became indefensible. ID is just a new wrapping on Creationism.

This, the creationists that are responsible for attempting to put a spotlight on ID have no shame in saying their intent in popularizing it was as a stepping stone towards bringing creationism and god back into school.

 

[RandomWords]

It is assumed, because Creationists came up with it when Creationism became indefensible.

But it is such a catchy title! What are Alien creationists suppose to say? Alien Design?!? That is just not cool or catchy at all! ... Creationists can't take the term Intelligence and deem that only God is intelligence! The Nerve! No wonder Aliens always come here to destroy us in movies - we basically are calling them morons...

 

[lxskllr]

But it is such a catchy title! What are Alien creationists suppose to say? Alien Design?!? That is just not cool or catchy at all! ... Creationists can't take the term Intelligence and deem that only God is intelligence! The Nerve! No wonder Aliens always come here to destroy us in movies - we basically are calling them morons...

I think Alien Design is pretty catchy. What could be cooler than being derived from aliens?

 

[RandomWords]

What could be cooler than being derived from aliens?

Hey... if we can be derived from God - it is totally possible alternative that we were derived from Aliens in some round about way...

Humans have been trying to explain origins for thousands of years - always changing the story... in a thousand years - who knows - maybe Aliens will be the new thing.

 

[Gibsons]

... - ...

- ... - - .

Translated this to Morse code: "STSTSTTE"

 

[SP33Demon]

While technically true, that's disingenuous. There is an extremely strong consensus (and that's just one convenient example) among the scientific community about modern evolutionary theory, and you can even read how it all works. The only controversies on this topic exist in the minds of uninformed laymen and the willfully ignorant.

Since apologists like SP33Demon already know all the answers trying to dialogue with them is an absolute waste of time.

I'm not an apologist but a realist. Since you seem to be good at linking to wikipedia, take up world famous chemist Dr. Tour on his challenge to explain macroevolution to him at the molecular level. You'll get a free meal out of it, not to mention get your ass handed to you.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

 

[RandomWords]

Translated this to Morse code: "STSTSTTE"

Hmm.. that is definitely the translation of that Morse code... I wonder what it means - maybe it is a secret coded message put here by the government or aliens! OMG OMG OMG! I've. just. been. contacted!

Disclaimer: May make people's panties bunch who takes the subject of human origins too seriously.

 

[SP33Demon]

Something doesn't become false because some people say it's false. Macroevolution is simply accumulated microevolution.

Short explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1t5_iGN0xE
Long explanation: watch or read Richard Dawkins.

Sure it is. And there's absolutely zero proof for such a theory spanning millions of years, just like Darwinian macroevolution has been debunked. I'm not saying it's not possible, simply that there isn't proof that microev = macroev. Quite frankly, Stephen Gould's theories hold more weight than Dawkins.

 

[SP33Demon]

Baseless assertions. Another one I have heard recently is, "Evolution was disproven 50 years ago". No specifics given, just the assertion.

As for "Scientists" accepting ID, these range from Dentists to actual Biologists with everything in between(including Engineers and even those who merely took some Science classes in College/University). The vast majority are not Biologists, which is why the term "Scientists" is used. It's an attempt to appear to be authoritative, but is a deliberate deception.

Ahem. From 2001. Some incredibly large heavy hitters on that list.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

 

[Ruptga]

I'm just gonna throw this out there for anyone reading that's ignorant, but isn't willfully ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
First paragraph:

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[1][4]

And re: "100 scientists against evolution": here's 1344 scientists on the other side, and they're all named Steve. http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

As for you, SP33Demon, I'm sure you're going to take this as an admission of defeat, but you won't bait me into one of your "debates." I'm not new to either creationists or insane troll logic, and it's just not gonna happen. Peace out.

 

[lxskllr]

Ahem. From 2001. Some incredibly large heavy hitters on that list.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

Anything the Discovery Institute releases can be dismissed without comment. It's a bullshit organization that espouses bullshit. Lets see some links from peer reviewed papers published in respected journals.

 

[sandorski]

Ahem. From 2001. Some incredibly large heavy hitters on that list.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

Ahem. Read the list.

 

[sandorski]

Sure it is. And there's absolutely zero proof for such a theory spanning millions of years, just like Darwinian macroevolution has been debunked. I'm not saying it's not possible, simply that there isn't proof that microev = macroev. Quite frankly, Stephen Gould's theories hold more weight than Dawkins.

BS.

 

[Engineer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lu3VTngm1F0#t=99

 

[Thebobo]

It's funny - when the statement says scientists are leaning towards ID - that the majority of responders assume that it means 'God' - hell - ID can encompass anything from God to various form of Aliens / Alien life - since it is possible some meteor could have had alien bacteria that just mutated everything... that is just being far fetched as I wonder why people assume ID is always God to each scientist that leans that way... granted - a lot of it is - but still... assumptions.

I agree but unfortunately what ever is called Intelligent design these days is tied to the creationist movement that tried to give itself validity by using that term. To make it acceptable they need to separate the religious aspect of it imo. I would say Alien Design to be clear, but it sounds to crazy and then you would have to admit there are aliens. :sneaky:

 

[Anarchist420]

I dont believe that macro-evolution happened. i dont see how all differences in all life can be exclusively from accumulation of micro-evolution.

and a reason to believe there isnt a supreme being (or "SB") is because monarchy is not the natural order; but then the natural order is from the one to the many so punishments/rewards after death would be determined democratically... one who is creative and precise enough to have made the universe has to be an NTP. NTPs love spontaneous order and democracy so they wouldnt mandate fate that lasted forever against the wishes of others (i.e., neither good nor bad will ever be permanent for the non-elect as the elect will choose what happens to the non-elect whenever the elect feels like it).

 

[Zodiark1593]

I'm not an apologist but a realist. Since you seem to be good at linking to wikipedia, take up world famous chemist Dr. Tour on his challenge to explain macroevolution to him at the molecular level. You'll get a free meal out of it, not to mention get your ass handed to you.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

We haz a winner.

Every idea proposed to explain our creation/evolution is a hypothesis (an educated guess based on what we (think we) know for sure, and certain beliefs). Even if we manage to prove without a doubt the existence of Evolution, we still have the question of whether Evolution itself was mere chance, or by design. As we don't currently have means of time travel, nor centuries (or millennia) to spend on repeatable experiments, obtaining undeniable proof of either is unlikely to happen, at least, within any of our lifetimes.

And without proof, we also lack understanding. This is why I think arguing over this topic is utterly stupid and childish. (seriously, imagine two full grown adults arguing over whether Java or C++ is better, with neither having programmed anything in their lives. )

 

[Thebobo]

Ahem. From 2001. Some incredibly large heavy hitters on that list.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

Good for them but its a religious organization - http://www.discovery.org/about.php

 

[Thebobo]

And without proof, we also lack understanding. This is why I think arguing over this topic is utterly stupid and childish. (seriously, imagine two full grown adults arguing over whether Java or C++ is better, with neither having programmed anything in their lives. )

Well am sure glad you are not in charge of who can discuss what here then!

BTW I know some basic so I say Java, because it sounds like coffee.

 

[sandorski]

We haz a winner.

Every idea proposed to explain our creation/evolution is a hypothesis (an educated guess based on what we (think we) know for sure, and certain beliefs). Even if we manage to prove without a doubt the existence of Evolution, we still have the question of whether Evolution itself was mere chance, or by design. As we don't currently have means of time travel, nor centuries (or millennia) to spend on repeatable experiments, obtaining undeniable proof of either is unlikely to happen, at least, within any of our lifetimes.

And without proof, we also lack understanding. This is why I think arguing over this topic is utterly stupid and childish. (seriously, imagine two full grown adults arguing over whether Java or C++ is better, with neither having programmed anything in their lives. )

Completely wrong. Creationism is certainly a Hypothesis. Evolution is far beyond Hypothesis and is a Theory that makes testable and useful Predictions.

 

[Gibsons]

We haz a winner.

Every idea proposed to explain our creation/evolution is a hypothesis (an educated guess based on what we (think we) know for sure, and certain beliefs).

No, some are theories. There's a difference.

Even if we manage to prove without a doubt the existence of Evolution, we still have the question of whether Evolution itself was mere chance, or by design. As we don't currently have means of time travel, nor centuries (or millennia) to spend on repeatable experiments, obtaining undeniable proof of either is unlikely to happen, at least, within any of our lifetimes.

Read some Popper, maybe. Then look into what falsifiable means. A theory or hypothesis that is not falsifiable doesn't merit consideration in the same breath as one that is falsifiable.

And without proof, we also lack understanding.

If you want formal proof, you can safely ignore all of biology, chemistry, and even physics. Stick to math. We have little proof of anything beyond our own existence.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm not an apologist but a realist. Since you seem to be good at linking to wikipedia, take up world famous chemist Dr. Tour on his challenge to explain macroevolution to him at the molecular level. You'll get a free meal out of it, not to mention get your ass handed to you.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

From that link, you are right that we don't have a great idea on how life originated. However, that does not disprove the copious amount of genetic information available showing evolution between extant species from bacteria to man.

 

[coffeejunkee]

I agree but unfortunately what ever is called Intelligent design these days is tied to the creationist movement that tried to give itself validity by using that term. To make it acceptable they need to separate the religious aspect of it imo. I would say Alien Design to be clear, but it sounds to crazy and then you would have to admit there are aliens. :sneaky:

The aliens would just be a stepping stone, because who designed the aliens? It would actually make things worse, because if something as complex as life can't be the result of coincidence, something so complex that it could actually create something as complex as life surely can't be.

It also raises the question, why did they do it? Showoffs? Do we actually provide them with something they need? Or are we part of some kind of giant Truman show? (would explain why they haven't given us any clues about their existence.)

Still, I have a hard time understanding why in fact there are some legitimate scientists that favor ID. It seems it's just too hard to accept for some people, smart or not, that there might not be a point to all of this.

 

[TheSlamma]

I think Alien Design is pretty catchy. What could be cooler than being derived from aliens?

You really think a species that intelligent would come up with such a shitty design as the human knee? Please, these things need another 100K years of evolution at least.