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

[Gibsons]

Lol - quotes are not evidence.

I just went outside and made a hole just big enough to hold 2 liters of water, so I made it just right for the puddle to fit comfortably inside the hole without it running over.

I "intelligently designed" it!

His argument wasn't evidence based either. His argument was flawed, the response was a parable demonstrating the fallacy.

 

[Retro Rob]

Guess what, you just also provided objective evidence proving that you did that. ()

Touché!

At any rate, puddles form naturally and they can also be deliberately made.

I was interested in refuting the logic that just because things can from naturally that must somehow eliminate deliberate design.

Fwiw, I believe in God, but I'm not an ID/Creationism proponent.

 

[Gibsons]

Those popes were more murdery, though. Definitely that pope wins.

(btw: current pope is no longer that Hitlery Ratzenburger fellow. FYI)

But zombie Darwin would eat their brains. If you let them cheat and use the Swiss Guard, the zombie Darwin gets to use zombie.... finches? er... tortoises? No wait, zombie sailors from the Beagle, like from Pirates of the Caribbean! Zombie Darwin wins!

 

[darkswordsman17]

Ok, you just admitted that you're too pussy to post your creds and challenge Dr. Tour to a debate over lunch on macroevolution. The expected result of course. My creds do not matter, I'm not the one questioning Dr. Tour's knowledge of chemistry (of which he is a top ten cited scientist). Put up or shut up. Pussy.

:biggrin:

I didn't question his credentials, I never mentioned them brought them up, or insinuated anything about his credentials. I questioned his arguments, mostly because I couldn't discern what his actual argument is/was.

If you think I can't question someone else without posting my credentials, then you certainly can't question me without posting yours. So take your own advice.

 

[Gibsons]

Touché!

At any rate, puddles form naturally and they can also be deliberately made.

I was interested in refuting the logic that just because things can from naturally that must somehow eliminate deliberate design.

Fwiw, I believe in God, but I'm not an ID/Creationism proponent.

In either case, the mere presence of a hole is not indicative of a design or creator. And, just because a hole was dug, doesn't mean it was for specifically for that collection of water molecules. Maybe it was just there.

 

[darkswordsman17]

But zombie Darwin would eat their brains. If you let them cheat and use the Swiss Guard, the zombie Darwin gets to use zombie.... finches? er... tortoises? No wait, zombie sailors from the Beagle, like from Pirates of the Caribbean! Zombie Darwin wins!

He gets to resurrect all the extinct species!

Wait, why are people even putting Darwin against the Pope? Hasn't Catholicism publicly abandoned ID (as far as evolution and speciation is concerned at least)?

Oh and the Pope would bring zombie Jesus back, he'd see "Christianity" and what's become of the followers of his teachings and decide to nuke the planet from orbit. Only after he hires Xenu to come pick up all the cool people in those sweetass intergalactic DC-8s, so they could jet around the cosmos and find a new planet.

 

[IronWing]

He gets to resurrect all the extinct species!

Wait, why are people even putting Darwin against the Pope? Hasn't Catholicism publicly abandoned ID (as far as evolution and speciation is concerned at least)?

Oh and the Pope would bring zombie Jesus back, he'd see "Christianity" and what's become of the followers of his teachings and decide to nuke the planet from orbit. Only after he hires Xenu to come pick up all the cool people in those sweetass intergalactic DC-8s, so they could jet around the cosmos and find a new planet.

Jets won't work in the vacuum of space.

 

[Paratus]

Let us listen to Neal Stephenson on this subject:

Let's set the existence-of-god issue aside for a later volume, and just stipulate that in some way, self-replicating organisms came into existence on this planet and immediately began trying to get rid of each other, either by spamming their environments with rough copies of themselves, or by more direct means which hardly need to be belabored. Most of them failed, and their genetic legacy was erased from the universe forever, but a few found some way to survive and to propagate. After about three billion years of this sometimes zany, frequently tedious fugue of carnality and carnage, Godfrey Waterhouse IV was born, in Murdo, South Dakota, to Blanche, the wife of a Congregational preacher named Bunyan Waterhouse. Like every other creature on the face of the earth, Godfrey was, by birthright, a stupendous badass, albeit in the somewhat narrow technical sense that he could trace his ancestry back up a long line of slightly less highly evolved stupendous badasses to that first self-replicating gizmo--which, given the number and variety of its descendants, might justifiably be described as the most stupendous badass of all time. Everyone and everything that wasn't a stupendous badass was dead.



As nightmarishly lethal, memetically programmed death-machines went, these were the nicest you could ever hope to meet. excerpt from the Cryptonomicon

 

[JD50]

Touché!

At any rate, puddles form naturally and they can also be deliberately made.

I was interested in refuting the logic that just because things can from naturally that must somehow eliminate deliberate design.

Fwiw, I believe in God, but I'm not an ID/Creationism proponent.

When did this change? You have said before that you believe god created humans. If I recall correctly you believe Adam and eve was a true story.

 

[QueBert]

What works "Perfectly". Things work adequately, but could be improved greatly. Much of the Order you or I experience has nothing to do with anything other than humanities own making.

An example how sex works, one small change and it could have been painful like giving birth for a man to have an orgasm and humans wouldn't have even reproduced. The way I can breath air without any trouble. Everything works, could things work better? of course, but shit could not work at all. And basically everything works. People living to be 100 is pretty much proof of that. The fact I can have sex and make a baby, it's not just random luck that this works, it was designed to happen. This can be applied to a million things in life imho. WHen I say perfect I don't mean they always work, they don't. But the fact they work at all, and on a constant basis is all the proof I need.

 

[IronWing]

An example how sex works, one small change and it could have been painful like giving birth for a man to have an orgasm and humans wouldn't have even reproduced. The way I can breath air without any trouble. Everything works, could things work better? of course, but shit could not work at all. And basically everything works. People living to be 100 is pretty much proof of that. The fact I can have sex and make a baby, it's not just random luck that this works, it was designed to happen. This can be applied to a million things in life imho. WHen I say perfect I don't mean they always work, they don't. But the fact they work at all, and on a constant basis is all the proof I need.

If procreation didn't work for you then you wouldn't pass on your genes. More evidence for natural selection! Thank you.

 

[QueBert]

If procreation didn't work for you then you wouldn't pass on your genes. More evidence for natural selection! Thank you.

But look at how creation comes from sex and how most people will say nothing feels better than sex. It can't just be by chance that the one way for us to repopulate would be the single best feeling thing you could experience. There was design involved with us being here.

 

[IronWing]

But look at how creation comes from sex and how most people will say nothing feels better than sex. It can't just be by chance that the one way for us to repopulate would be the single best feeling thing you could experience. There was design involved with us being here.

I'm not seeing any need for design here. Organisms that don't reproduce wink out. Those that do reproduce have a chance to stick around. So those organisms that have mechanisms to encourage reproduction would likely displace those that don't. How many Shaker communities do you see?

 

[Ruptga]

An example how sex works, one small change and it could have been painful like giving birth for a man to have an orgasm and humans wouldn't have even reproduced. The way I can breath air without any trouble. Everything works, could things work better? of course, but shit could not work at all. And basically everything works. People living to be 100 is pretty much proof of that. The fact I can have sex and make a baby, it's not just random luck that this works, it was designed to happen. This can be applied to a million things in life imho. WHen I say perfect I don't mean they always work, they don't. But the fact they work at all, and on a constant basis is all the proof I need.

It proves nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Earth seems to fit us so well because we evolved to fit in here. Earth apparently had the perfect conditions for our creation because if it didn't have those conditions we wouldn't have formed (in this way, at least). To borrow on someone else's example, the puddle takes its shape from the hole, not the other way around.

Did you know that oxygen caused one of this planet's first mass extinctions? If that event was designed it might be gracious to call it intelligent, unless our gods are actually the Shadows of Babylon 5.

 

[Schmide]

Just a note on sex. Bedbugs have a knife like penis and the female has no genitalia.

 

[witeken]

Things work too perfectly for this all to be just dumb luck. For humans and everything around us to be here without some sort of ID would be like the same 1 person winning the lottery every single drawing, forever. God? Something else? Dunno, but something is behind it.

Please look at the post above you.

The reason that you don't believe in evolution is because you don't understand it. If you think about it carefully, evolution really makes a lot of sense. It's a bit like the anthropic principle. The amount of things that you can explain with evolution is huge.

The basic principle of evolution:
A combination of atoms that is not able to survive & replicate good enough will go extinct.
A combination of atoms that is able to survive and replicate successfully will be a living species.

This is enabled by errata in the copying process; differential survival of genes. It's not luck at all, it's just trial and error.

 

[witeken]

An example how sex works, one small change and it could have been painful like giving birth for a man to have an orgasm and humans wouldn't have even reproduced. The way I can breath air without any trouble. Everything works, could things work better? of course, but shit could not work at all. And basically everything works. People living to be 100 is pretty much proof of that. The fact I can have sex and make a baby, it's not just random luck that this works, it was designed to happen. This can be applied to a million things in life imho. WHen I say perfect I don't mean they always work, they don't. But the fact they work at all, and on a constant basis is all the proof I need.

If sex was painful for some humans, they wouldn't reproduce and so they wouldn't spread their genes that make sex painful. It isn't a coincidence that sex is rewarding. If it weren't no one would have sex and humanity would go extinct. This can be applied to million things in life.

 

[mikeymikec]

I heard this statement this morning, and I was going to ignore it, but the guy that said it usually has his head on straight, so I have to ask. This isn't true, right? I was pretty sure we'be been moving away from that steadily for a while now.....

I apologise if someone has pointed this out already, but "more and more scientists are starting to believe in Intelligent Design" can simply mean "one scientist believed it, now there's two"*. One might assume from it that the number of scientists who believe in Intelligent Design either outnumber those that don't or it is "getting that way", but either of those points lack the necessary data to declare either as facts.

Furthermore, what is "Intelligent Design"? The OP's statement doesn't declare it. One might assume that it means that the parts which humanity doesn't have a plausible theory for and backed by evidence such as what initiated "The Big Bang"**, some scientists attribute that to God for lack of any better idea for now, however it could also/alternatively mean that someone who believes in ID also believes that the theory of evolution is completely wrong. When counting the number of scientists "who believe in ID", do you count people who believe both sides of it only, or do you also count those that believe in either side of it?

I'm just surprised that this thread has reached 11 pages.

* - substitute the numbers for whatever numbers you feel aren't an attempt at ridicule, if you happen to feel that way. Ridicule not intended.

** - AFAIK there's little in the way of evidence for what started "The Big Bang", I could be wrong, I don't keep up with the latest theories/developments.

 

[SP33Demon]

I want an answer to my questions before I respond to your desperate elephant hurling:

Does the fossil record "support the Cambrian Explosion"?
How do you think we know about the Cambrian Explosion?

1) The fact that I just linked evidence to paleontology should be a clue. Were you dropped on your head as a child or do you enjoy attempting to strawman people to death?

1) Please link more of your talking points from TalkOrigins, which has been debunked repeatedly so I can continue to shoot them down.

PS: "Elephant" insult = you have no rebuttal to it. When someone has no rebuttal, they resort to insults. Quit while you're ahead, your precious TalkOrigins website is as dead as Darwinism.

 

[SP33Demon]

Let us listen to Neal Stephenson on this subject:

Entirely possible, with or without God. In fact, we could have been created from the "top down" theory, assuming time travel. See Cable (Nathan Summers) from Marvel Comics, his superior genetics traveled through time to ancient Egypt, where advanced quarrying technology was used that we are still studying today. Or in other storylines, we could be wiped out by a "bottom up" approach, such as the Sentinels (enemy of the X-Men) where machines replicate/advance to the point where they become the dominant species. It may sound fantastic, but could be a reality one day.

 

[Retro Rob]

When did this change? You have said before that you believe god created humans. If I recall correctly you believe Adam and eve was a true story.

Nothing "changed". Creationism, as often defined here in the US, is a religious Fundamentalist doctrine that the Universe (and everthing in it) was created within the last 10,000 years. ID is nothing more but this same teaching, only dressed up as "science".

Yes, I believe in Creation (God's act of creating), but not that the whole world was created relatively recently.

These people also think Christianity is waged in some "war" between religion and secularism, and they must find a way to get this taught in schools in order to stop our children from compromising the Bible for belief in "millions of years.

I have absolutely nothing to do with that.

 

[SP33Demon]

I apologise if someone has pointed this out already, but "more and more scientists are starting to believe in Intelligent Design" can simply mean "one scientist believed it, now there's two"*. One might assume from it that the number of scientists who believe in Intelligent Design either outnumber those that don't or it is "getting that way", but either of those points lack the necessary data to declare either as facts.

Furthermore, what is "Intelligent Design"? The OP's statement doesn't declare it. One might assume that it means that the parts which humanity doesn't have a plausible theory for and backed by evidence such as what initiated "The Big Bang"**, some scientists attribute that to God for lack of any better idea for now, however it could also/alternatively mean that someone who believes in ID also believes that the theory of evolution is completely wrong. When counting the number of scientists "who believe in ID", do you count people who believe both sides of it only, or do you also count those that believe in either side of it?

I'm just surprised that this thread has reached 11 pages.

* - substitute the numbers for whatever numbers you feel aren't an attempt at ridicule, if you happen to feel that way. Ridicule not intended.

** - AFAIK there's little in the way of evidence for what started "The Big Bang", I could be wrong, I don't keep up with the latest theories/developments.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

 

[mnewsham]

http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/

was that supposed to support ID? cause it is really failing in the whole, actual science category. And the source for the link you posted just links to another ID blog page. It's like a sad little circle jerk.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Republicans say that a lot. They like to make all the silly normies believe they're poor because it was designed that way...and it was, by the intelligent people with money!

 

[feralkid]

But look at how creation comes from sex and how most people will say nothing feels better than sex. It can't just be by chance that the one way for us to repopulate would be the single best feeling thing you could experience. There was design involved with us being here.

Or perhaps the organisms that enjoyed sex the most tended to have sex more, thus reproducing more, thus having the "sex feels good" thingy becoming the most dominant?