Intelligent Design is Dead, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 24 times

Topic started on 2-12-2011 @ 05:27 AM by Astyanax

So says PZ Myers, biologist and gallant anti-creationist, in his latest post on Pharyngula, quoting Jason Rosenhouse, a former Kansas schoolteacher fighting the good fight on Evolution Blog. And I think they are right.

As Myers explains in his post, the ID movement is now twenty years old and in substantive terms has achieved absolutely nothing. No school teaches intelligent design in science class as an alternative to evolution. The Institute of Creation Research and other institutions like it have not been able to find a single piece of evidence to substantiate ID. Their best bet, the fallacious concept of irreducible complexity, has been debunked time and time again.

Neither have ID supporters and creationists been able to cast even the faintest shadow of scientific doubt on the theory of evolution.

Meanwhile, out in the public forum, ID books have stopped selling, and ID blogs are losing followers. ID proponents are actually out there complaining that the evolutionists they attacked earlier are now ignoring them. Apparently even our attention is better than no attention at all; the poor things must be feeling very unloved.

Here on Above Top Secret, where rigourous scientific standards are not applied, you might expect creationists and IDists to do better; yet despite the plethora of threads on the subject in this forum, the score remains Creationists 0, Evolutionists Every Single Game. Our creationist friends here may beg to differ, but the threads speak for themselves.

I think it is time for supporters of scientific truth to quietly celebrate a hard-earned victory.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 05:37 AM by WakeUpRiseUp

I guess it’s not appropriate to say “Rest In Peace”.
The sad reality is we have half the world believing in fairy tales its been like this forever, we have the knowledge to rise above it now but I still think it will take a few more decades; I don’t believe something like religion can last forever in a evolving society like ours.
I’ve always wondered if that day when we have forgot about religion the human race would become an infinitely better place; there’s no doubt about it in my mind.

RIP IGNORANCE, YOU HAVE BEEN DENIED TO YOUR DEATH BED.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 05:42 AM by daggyz

Thats funny I thought evolution was dead principle. I haven't seen onme convincing thing yet. Of course you can't prove God either in some sense. Both require faith but evolution requires way way more faith than anyone believing in something greater than mans intelligence.

It takes more faith to believe that all you see came from a microbe living in a slime pit after volcanoes created the soil that came from a planet that formed by revolving around a sun that came from an explosion that came from.... well, they don't actually know where all that matter came from do they? Who created all the matter that existed bore the so called big bang. If nothing exists how can it bang.. etc etc etc . They don't know where the matter came from.

All evolutionists can do is think within time and space they can see as if that is all that exists.

It's farcical and it's very very very amusing to behold. Funnier its the offense that evolutionist take to that.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 05:45 AM by steveknows

reply to post by Astyanax

I believe in evolution. I undertstand evolution. I think that evolution should be celebrated as it is testimony to how life will always hang on and overcome.

However one thing that has always nagged at me and had me stumped is the bacterial flagellum. The outboard motor that can rotate at speeds of 100,000rpm. Perhaps it is the altimate tribute to evolution but everytime I think of it it makes me a bit uneasy to sign off on it.

Anyway a

for your thread. You've hit the nail on the head.

edit on 2-12-2011 by steveknows because: Typo

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 05:52 AM by WakeUpRiseUp

reply to post by steveknows

However one thing that has always nagged at me and had me stumped is the bacterial flagellum. The outboard motor that can rotate at speeds of 100,000rpm. Perhaps it is the altimate tribute to evolution but everytime I think of it it makes me a bit uneasy to sign off on it.

I would say that the smaller something is the less energy it needs to reach such speeds. Physical features of an organic animal have no limit and almost everything is achievable given the right conditions.

edit on 2-12-2011 by WakeUpRiseUp because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 06:10 AM by steveknows

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
reply to post by steveknows

However one thing that has always nagged at me and had me stumped is the bacterial flagellum. The outboard motor that can rotate at speeds of 100,000rpm. Perhaps it is the altimate tribute to evolution but everytime I think of it it makes me a bit uneasy to sign off on it.
I would say that the smaller something is the less energy it needs to reach such speeds. Physical features of an organic animal have no limit and almost everything is achievable given the right conditions.
edit on 2-12-2011 by WakeUpRiseUp because: (no reason given)

It's the stages of the flagellum which I ponder more so than the speed. I'm not a creationists and I believe there is an evolutionary answer to this little mystery but I can't close the book until it's been answerd.

In a universe of infinite numbers the greater the number the smaller the equation. There's a natural reason there no doubt but it's yet to be addressed.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 06:18 AM by jondave

no way we evolved. We still have apes, where is the missing link?

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 06:36 AM by colin42

What I never understand, and no matter how many times you say it why cant the creationists understand Evolution has nothing to say about the creation of life.

I have no belief in a deity but for those that do Evolution has much to offer. The genius of the process and its simplicity.

It shows lifes strength does not lay with population numbers or who is the most advanced. The message I get is lifes strength is in the differences and those differences ensures life will continue as long as it has a place it can survive in.

I can only conclude that their belief is not in a god, it is in a book as that is the only explanation for their fear of and hatred for Evolution.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 06:46 AM by SuperiorEd

reply to post by Astyanax

Here on Above Top Secret, where rigourous scientific standards are not applied, you might expect creationists and IDists to do better; yet despite the plethora of threads on the subject in this forum, the score remains Creationists 0, Evolutionists Every Single Game. Our creationist friends here may beg to differ, but the threads speak for themselves.

I think it is time for supporters of scientific truth to quietly celebrate a hard-earned victory.

Actually, science has shown that matter cannot change states apart from consciousness. This takes the former notion of matter originating life and destroys the notion for good. The observer collapses the indeterminate wave of possible outcomes to change the states of matter, thereby causing changes to matter. This is called Wave Function Collapse..

As science continues to crack open the microcosm, it verifies what the spiritual thinkers have continued to say: We are designed at such a scale of complexity and precision to purpose, evolution is shown to be a product of the process of ID, not the other way around.

Wave Function Collapse is the nail in the coffin for the myth that matter originates consciousness. Consciousness is where matter begins. There are no changed states apart form choice. There are no natural laws apart from choice. Overcome this before ID can be shown as false. The observer is necessary to answer this post and the observer is necessary to change the state of matter in the beginning of time. This is evidence from science that confirms ID.

edit on 2-12-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 07:01 AM by boymonkey74

reply to post by jondave

OMG we share a common ancestor (which was a type of ape) with Great apes we are Great Apes we are like brothers in evolution.
www.newscientist.com...
Please at least study a bit before saying things like that.
Also we have seen humans evolve in the past 10000 years by with way we started using dairy products.
evolution.berkeley.edu...
Every living thing on this planet adapt's to it's surrounding's a great way how to study evolution is to look at madagascar and the lemurs
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 2-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 07:10 AM by WakeUpRiseUp

Originally posted by jondave
no way we evolved. We still have apes, where is the missing link?

The missing link is called 'species'.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:32 AM by Barcs

But I've never seen a monkey give birth to a human, how could evolution be true? You think your grandpa is a rock????

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:52 AM by sinthia

reply to post by Astyanax

ID is not dead. If you check out richard dawkins own website you can enter a competition to try and explain the origins of life. Desperation or what!!!!!!!

Evolution is unproven, and believed by idiots. If you disagree, provide evidence.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 10:59 AM by rogerstigers

I guess my philosophy would be evolutionary creationism. Since I believe that the entire universe is alive and aware in a microcosm -> macrocosm series of layers (like an ogre or an onion

).

Basically, the simplest things we know about that emulate life (viruses and prions) are controlled by the environment in which they live. Moving out a bit to bacterial clusters, you begin to see basic levels of "purpose", but nothing too complex (grow, eat, reproduce, etc.). Moving further out, you begin to see single selled organisms organizing into complex organisms. Each cell is still alive, but is highly specialized into a function that serves the greater organism. The sum of the parts is less than the whole in these cases and that whole can change the makeup of the parts as needed (real-time adaptation).

This "zooming out" effect continues up to the planetary scale. Beyond that it is harder to describe.. This is because of the challenges with looking outside of your container (similar to the Allegory of the Cave). We can make suppositions, but we must accept that nothing we can come up with is guaranteed to be accurate.

I have yet to see anything that proves that evolution is wrong and/or impossible. I simply believe that each level of complexity can manipulate the levels below it.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 11:06 AM by ACTS 2:38

The theory of evolution has never brought any light to how life began, or how diversity of life came about, or how symbiotic relationships in life exist.

The theory of evolution has never explained how we man have decided to marry and have offspring, and many time marry with weak mates.

The theory of evolution has never explained why life decided to become male and female.

The theory of evolution is a belief which requires faith to continue to believe as it is not testable or repeatable.

Let me state for a fact fossils are not a proof of evolution.
Why you say,

Because a bone in the ground is just that you have to speculate and assume that it had offspring, or that it was a different species of its parents.

Romans 1:
[21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
[23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

This verse was written 100's of years ago and yet is just as true today as then people are willfully ignorant as to have no conscience of their lusts that take them farther from God.

[24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 11:11 AM by mamabeth

reply to post by boymonkey74

Well,your ancestors may have swung from trees and peeled
bananas with their feet,mine didn't.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 11:19 AM by rogerstigers

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

One could say the same thing about any "creation myth". Faith is fine for those who can swallow it. For those who can't, the search goes on for something that can be logically explained and understood using realities on hand.

I find this whole debate a little ludicrous because it comes down to "My computer was created by Dell vs My computer was created by a series of underpaid workers and robots in Texas who work for Dell".

The philosophical debate of how the spark of conciousness and the engine driving diversification came about is great for philosophy or comparative religion classes. It is inappropriate for science classes.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 11:19 AM by Xcalibur254

reply to post by sinthia

And thus starts the same argument that has been held on here time and time again in numerous different threads. Here's your evidence.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 11:24 AM by rogerstigers

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by sinthia

And thus starts the same argument that has been held on here time and time again in numerous different threads. Here's your evidence.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Great quote from there that I think really nails it:

Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.

reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 11:27 AM by sinthia

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Yep the usual exchange of links:
www.trueorigin.org...

I fail to see how ID is dead when one of the most fervent campaigners for evolution is promoting a $50,000 prize for someone to provide a realistic explanatio for the origin of life. With such a fundamental piece of the puzzle missing, to say that ID is dead is ridiculous

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^