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

[Paratus]

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.

First my quote was a semi-humorous opening to a fiction story.


Next what do you mean by top down or bottom up? Anyone who claims to have a "theory" that references top, bottom, higher, or lower really doesn't understand what evolutionary theory actually says today.

Referring to comics and "superior genetics" tends to drive home the lack of awareness you have for how natural selection and inheritability actually work.

NO scientist is going to use ID to do any type of genetic science. It makes no useful predictions. It's an unacceptable substitute for evolutionary theory.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

- Humanity discovered cells a few hundred years ago.
- DNA was discovered (very) roughly 100 years ago.
- Best estimates on the age of life on Earth are in the range of a few billion years, with it appearing perhaps 1.5 billion years after Earth started forming.
- We haven't created life yet in this incredibly short timespan.
- Therefore aliens/god/ID must have done it, always ignoring the notion that this complex designer would have had to come from somewhere. For some reason, this highly-advanced designer is permitted the luxury of being able to simply pop into existence or to develop naturally through its own process of abiogenesis, and that explanation is seen as being more likely than abiogenesis occurring right here on Earth.

That is the part that makes me do the my brain is full of fuck meme. The mental gymnastics many religious folks do; which results in a god of the gaps, or some other theologically based explanation.

Your faith does not have to be compatible with science. Just have it, and rest easy, and wait for your rapture or whatever your faith promises you. The reason they fight so hard against it, is it continues to erode membership. Which of course is bad for the financial bottom line of religious organizations. Follow the money, and the agenda is understandable. That a higher power capable of all creation, would require humans to defend it or its works against other humans, is preposterous and laughable to me.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

1) The fact that I just linked evidence to paleontology should be a clue.

No, I can only go by what you've said.

Were you dropped on your head as a child or do you enjoy attempting to strawman people to death?

How are questions about your beliefs and knowledge tantamount to a "strawman"? Do you even know what a "strawman" is?

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

Nothing has been "shot down." I will dismantle the key points of your large copy/paste job once you answer my questions directly.

PS: "Elephant" insult = you have no rebuttal to it.

No, "elephant hurling" is when a person who lacks a substantive argument instead copy/pastes huge walls of text in attempt to use quantity to disguise his lack of quality. This is a common creationist tactic, along the lines of the quote mining you did earlier.

When someone has no rebuttal, they resort to insults. Quit while you're ahead, your precious TalkOrigins website is as dead as Darwinism.

These are not answers to my questions, so I will repeat them.

Do you think the fossil record "supports the Cambrian Explosion"?

How do you think we know about the Cambrian Explosion?

You basically have two choices here: You can answer the questions, or tacitly admit you're will not debate in good faith. You initial evasion of them strongly suggests it will be the latter.

Your move.

 

[Puppies04]

**NEWS JUST IN**

The scientists decided to believe in intelligent design have changed their minds, we can close the thread now.

Or you can keep argueing with people who aren't going to change their minds, your choice.

 

[IronWing]

Or you can keep argueing with people who aren't going to change their minds, your choice.

I like arguing with people who will never change their minds. It feels good.

 

[Ruptga]

Every once in a while someone wanders in here that is ignorant, but not willfully ignorant. As long as that keeps up this thread will serve at least some small purpose.

 

[Jaskalas]

This thread is a clear example of #firstworldproblems

They don't have this issue in Africa!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

This is patently false. As has been noted, total lack of falsifiability renders all ID proposals unscientific.

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.

This is the question that all ID proponents can't answer:

How would you know if something was NOT designed?

This single question lays bare the total lack of scientific merit to the ID proposals, because it has no answer.

 

[mikeymikec]

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

Well that was pretty vague. I'm not sure if it was meant as a counter to the points I made.

 

[coffeejunkee]

This thread is a clear example of #firstworldproblems

They don't have this issue in Africa!

Actually they do. Right now fundamentalist christians are converting some poor village. You also wouldn't want to discuss subjects like this with boko haram.

I also read many of the comments on the Tour page linked earlier. It's so silly to see how ID proponents demand the most rigourous scientific proof down to the molecular level while all they have to offer is 'yeah, work of god'.

But lets say ID was accepted by the scientific community. What would actually change? Evolutionary biologists keep doing the research they do but every conclusion gets a mandatory 'and it's all according to god's design' line? Oh, we have to look for design clues...but that's the thing: evolution designs stuff. That's why a fish looks like a fish and not like a dog.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Years ago, when I worked at IBM, I was somewhat surprised at how many of the IBMers were bible thumping types. Having joined IBM from the USAF I'd left one institution that had quite a few bible thumpers (North Carolina don't you know) and was pretty surprised how many IBMers were heavily into religion.

One guy I worked with, a very bright mechanical engineer, was also known for bending the ear of anyone that would listen about religion, about Christ. I needed to talk to him one day so I went to look for him in his office but he wasn't there. I sat down at his desk to wait for him and I noticed a book on his desk entitled "The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter". So I picked it up and read through a good bit of it and here's what I discovered.

The book wasn't about teaching creationism per se though there were some statements promoting the ideas. The book wasn't really about detailing the weakness of evolution, though there were comments along those lines. No, the real purpose of the book was to provide the believer with a follow-by-numbers method to respond to supporters of evolution. That is, they would suggest a specific response that you should use with little background defending the answer. Simply, if they say this then you say that.

It turns out that many of the canned replies seemed to have been engineered to avoid actual science and instead was more like a politician's list of talking points. The goal was not information but misinformation.

Needless to say I was quite disappointed in my friend that he had such a book...


Brian

 

[Gibsons]

Years ago, when I worked at IBM, I was somewhat surprised at how many of the IBMers were bible thumping types. Having joined IBM from the USAF I'd left one institution that had quite a few bible thumpers (North Carolina don't you know) and was pretty surprised how many IBMers were heavily into religion.

One guy I worked with, a very bright mechanical engineer, was also known for bending the ear of anyone that would listen about religion, about Christ. I needed to talk to him one day so I went to look for him in his office but he wasn't there. I sat down at his desk to wait for him and I noticed a book on his desk entitled "The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter". So I picked it up and read through a good bit of it and here's what I discovered.

The book wasn't about teaching creationism per se though there were some statements promoting the ideas. The book wasn't really about detailing the weakness of evolution, though there were comments along those lines. No, the real purpose of the book was to provide the believer with a follow-by-numbers method to respond to supporters of evolution. That is, they would suggest a specific response the one specific issue with little background. Simply, if they say this then you say that.

It turns out that many of the canned replies seemed to have been engineered to avoid actual science and instead was more like a politician's list of talking points. The goal was not information but misinformation.

Needless to say I was quite disappointed in my friend that he had such a book...


Brian

How many of the responses were "Were you there?" or variations?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How many of the responses were "Were you there?" or variations?

Or, like appears constantly throughout that huge copy/paste job that SP33Demon posted, how many times do they whine about "uniformitarian assumptions"?

I find that one particularly hilarious, because it basically admits that the evidence on its face supports the scientific conclusion, but then suggests that if we were to suppose the existence of a bunch of inexplicable phenomena like changes to fundamental physical constants and notably the ludicrous idea of a global flood, then somehow presto-change-o everything lines up with creationism.

Nevermind the fact that they are happy to don the very same "uniformitarian assumptions" when talking about archaeology that relates to something in the Bible.

 

[chubbyfatazn]

Or, like appears constantly throughout that huge copy/paste job that SP33Demon posted, how many times do they whine about "uniformitarian assumptions"?

And resort to name-calling and insults when they need something else to "back up" their claims...

 

[darkswordsman17]

**NEWS JUST IN**

The scientists decided to believe in intelligent design have changed their minds, we can close the thread now.

Or you can keep argueing with people who aren't going to change their minds, your choice.

Its more than that. Its not about them just disagreeing, its about them trying to force shit via politics.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...ban-schools-from-teaching-scientific-process/

One of the bill's two sponsors, Rep. Andy Thompson (R-Lima), has gone back and forth about his intentions. Last week, he told The Columbus Dispatch that the bill would open the door to instruction on intelligent design: “I think it would be good for them to consider the perspectives of people of faith. That’s legitimate.”

This week, however, he told the Cincinnati Enquirer that the bill does nothing to put creationism into the classroom—instead, he said it's all about the political interpretation of science. And his example of politicized science, naturally, was climate change. Confusingly, as evidence of climate change's political nature, he cites past estimates of agricultural productivity and the availability of fossil fuels.

This has been an ongoing issue and that's the reason why people are so vitriolic towards ID people.

This thread is a clear example of #firstworldproblems

They don't have this issue in Africa!

Well, the funny thing is, they actually do. For decades (maybe even centuries) African people have had all manner of tactics to get them into believing Christianity and various other religions. This absolutely contributes to the issues we're seeing with the Ebola outbreak, as people try to hold to their beliefs while being berated about them by groups that just want them to exchange one set of ignorant nonsense for another. And its not like the Catholic Church pushing people to not use condoms is cause for problems when AIDS is ravaging their populations.

Don't get me wrong, there are good people who are religious doing good work in Africa, but their actions are being undermined and damaged by those who are doing it solely to try and push their religion and beliefs on people.

Years ago, when I worked at IBM, I was somewhat surprised at how many of the IBMers were bible thumping types. Having joined IBM from the USAF I'd left one institution that had quite a few bible thumpers (North Carolina don't you know) and was pretty surprised how many IBMers were heavily into religion.

One guy I worked with, a very bright mechanical engineer, was also known for bending the ear of anyone that would listen about religion, about Christ. I needed to talk to him one day so I went to look for him in his office but he wasn't there. I sat down at his desk to wait for him and I noticed a book on his desk entitled "The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter". So I picked it up and read through a good bit of it and here's what I discovered.

The book wasn't about teaching creationism per se though there were some statements promoting the ideas. The book wasn't really about detailing the weakness of evolution, though there were comments along those lines. No, the real purpose of the book was to provide the believer with a follow-by-numbers method to respond to supporters of evolution. That is, they would suggest a specific response that you should use with little background defending the answer. Simply, if they say this then you say that.

It turns out that many of the canned replies seemed to have been engineered to avoid actual science and instead was more like a politician's list of talking points. The goal was not information but misinformation.

Needless to say I was quite disappointed in my friend that he had such a book...


Brian

Its not that uncommon for incredibly bright people in some respects to be incredibly not bright in others. See the cases of people with Phd's getting suckered for tens (I think there are some that were even hundreds) of thousands of dollars in Nigerian scams and whatnot.

That's what's great about science though, it doesn't care what your beliefs or biases are, your work has to hold up to scrutiny. Of course people that don't understand basic logic try to prop up lack of overwhelming proof as not holding up to scrutiny (when all science says is, we don't know enough about it yet, but this is our best explanation based on the knowledge we currently have; of course its a sliding scale), while trying to force in other beliefs that hold up to even less scrutiny.

 

[Aikouka]

Years ago, when I worked at IBM, I was somewhat surprised at how many of the IBMers were bible thumping types. Having joined IBM from the USAF I'd left one institution that had quite a few bible thumpers (North Carolina don't you know) and was pretty surprised how many IBMers were heavily into religion.

I'm not too surprised by that. IBM was started in Endicott, New York, which is only right across the border from where I grew up in north-eastern Pennsylvania. Honestly, apart from the large cities (Pittsburgh and Philadelphia), Pennsylvania is fairly religious and isn't really that much different from the south... if you ignore the lack of fervor over college football. 😛 I wonder if a lot of that has to do with the fact that north-east Pennsylvania is also known as "Coal Country".

This blurb points out a few nationalities that were fairly religious:

Population rapidly grew in the period following the American Civil War, with the expansion of the mining and railroad industries. English, Welsh, Irish and German immigrants formed a large portion of this increase

I know that those four nationalities probably make up around 99% of my heritage.

 

[disappoint]

How many of the responses were "Were you there?" or variations?

I think one of them may have even been: "Hmm Hmm HIM."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPrZZUuxXaU

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

This thread is a clear example of #firstworldproblems

They don't have this issue in Africa!

In Africa, they get to sit there and have clean water/sanitation and food/medical supplies dangled in front of them if only they convent and let their kids be brainwashed.

 

[MtnMan]

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.....

Where did you hear it, on the internet, or out in the idiot smoking area where idiots still congregate?

 

[Jeff7]

That is the part that makes me do the my brain is full of fuck meme. The mental gymnastics many religious folks do; which results in a god of the gaps, or some other theologically based explanation.

Your faith does not have to be compatible with science. Just have it, and rest easy, and wait for your rapture or whatever your faith promises you. The reason they fight so hard against it, is it continues to erode membership. Which of course is bad for the financial bottom line of religious organizations. Follow the money, and the agenda is understandable. That a higher power capable of all creation, would require humans to defend it or its works against other humans, is preposterous and laughable to me.

Our species has plenty of jerks. If an alien did design us, either as a real thing, or just as a sophisticated simulation in a computer, they could also enjoy screwing around with life forms.

We have The Sims or SimCity or Civilization. Imagine if you had a game that could simulate a solar system, way down to what we consider to be the quantum level.

"Let's give these primates absurdly-large brains and see what happens."


"Huh, interesting. They've developed a system of sophisticated grunts and groans that they use for communication. They also store information using written symbols. Let's tell them some really crazy stuff. Rules and ideas and such, just for the hell of it."



Look at the horrible stuff we do to lower life forms.
Bread: Create a utopian environment for yeast. All the sugar they could want, and an enormous enclosure in which to breed. Go forth, multiply, and produce alcohol and carbon dioxide.
Then massacre the whole lot of them in an oven as thanks for their generations of work.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, I can only go by what you've said.


How are questions about your beliefs and knowledge tantamount to a "strawman"? Do you even know what a "strawman" is?


Nothing has been "shot down." I will dismantle the key points of your large copy/paste job once you answer my questions directly.


No, "elephant hurling" is when a person who lacks a substantive argument instead copy/pastes huge walls of text in attempt to use quantity to disguise his lack of quality. This is a common creationist tactic, along the lines of the quote mining you did earlier.


These are not answers to my questions, so I will repeat them.

Do you think the fossil record "supports the Cambrian Explosion"?

How do you think we know about the Cambrian Explosion?

You basically have two choices here: You can answer the questions, or tacitly admit you're will not debate in good faith. You initial evasion of them strongly suggests it will be the latter.

Your move.

This is patently false. As has been noted, total lack of falsifiability renders all ID proposals unscientific.


This is the question that all ID proponents can't answer:

How would you know if something was NOT designed?

This single question lays bare the total lack of scientific merit to the ID proposals, because it has no answer.

*crickets chirping*

What happened to Mr. Pastes-Walls-of-Text? Someone actually takes him to task and he runs away?

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

 

[PlanetJosh]

Being agnostic I have to admit that god may or may not exist. It's kind of difficult for me but don't have much choice but to concede that ID could be true. But again that's because of the structure of agnosticism I think. It's not like I'm actively trying to promote ID.

 

[zinfamous]

I love agnosticism. It allows me to entertain the notion that reality, and all of the order in the universe, is created and maintained via an elaborate and structured cascade of dragon farts.

:hmm:

 

[Ruptga]

Strictly speaking, agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position on metaphysics. But, that's strictly speaking; practically speaking there are a crapton of agnostics out there that just use it as a saving throw because they have no clue and can't be bothered to check anything out. Whatever, it's still a defensible position.