Intelligent Design is Dead, page 10

privacy

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 24 times

reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 01:17 PM by Barcs

Originally posted by taderhold
reply to post by MrXYZ
Thus the reason for my request to provide an explanation of how they could illustrate speciation -- the most fundamental process in Darwin’s theory of evolution -- in a lab or or with any other valid scientific method. I suspect they cannot. Speciation has never been observed in real time.
We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs—but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it’s more difficult to figure out how they happened.
Again, I ask any of those posters, which are always asking for the science to support ID, to provide an example of speciation by any scientific method without relying on links to Wikipedia. If they cannot, does that mean that evolution is not supported by science? Of course not.

I know I will be perceived to be an ID freak because of this post, however, I am not. I am extremely interested in the debate, but not presumptuous enough to think that I know the origins of life on earth. And will continue the debate as long as it does not get too sarcastic or petty.

You might want to move the debate to a thread about evolution. This thread is about Intelligent Design and the fact that it has made no scientific progress since its inception, not about evolution.

Speciation is not a separate process from evolution, nor is it the most fundamental. It's merely about how we label things. Genetic mutations sorted out through natural selection is what evolution is all about. 2 different groups of the same species split up and live in different environments. If given enough time the 2 creatures will change enough to no longer be able to reproduce, which makes them a separate species. It's not a process, it's an observation of how creatures change in the longterm. Plus speciation has been witnessed.

reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 01:21 PM by Barcs

I'm not religious, but theory that states everything became to existence exploding from nothing (nothing exploded, get it?) and the nature rules somehow accidentally applied after, sounds ridiculous as something like tornado sweeping through a junkyard creating fully functional Boeing 747...

not much different than belief in some angry white bearded grandfather on heavens scaring his children with a thunder...

This has nothing to do with ID, and is completely wrong to boot. Use google and at least learn the basics of a scientific theory before spewing ignorance that has absolutely nothing to do with ID or evolution. That is one of the worst comparisons I've ever read, and believe me I've heard tons of em. Put down the Hovind videos and pick up an actual science book.

edit on 6-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 01:36 PM by donhuangenaro

Originally posted by Barcs

I'm not religious, but theory that states everything became to existence exploding from nothing (nothing exploded, get it?) and the nature rules somehow accidentally applied after, sounds ridiculous as something like tornado sweeping through a junkyard creating fully functional Boeing 747...

not much different than belief in some angry white bearded grandfather on heavens scaring his children with a thunder...

This has nothing to do with ID, and is completely wrong to boot. Use google and at least learn the basics of a scientific theory before spewing ignorance that has absolutely nothing to do with ID or evolution. That is one of the worst comparisons I've ever read, and believe me I've heard tons of em. Put down the Hovind videos and pick up an actual science book.
edit on 6-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

well, and I have not ever met more arrogant person in my life (believe me, I've seen them a lot)...

no matter, you asked for the scientific proof, here is a very simple comparison between a mouse neural cell and a simulated map of the universe:

is this also result of coincidental evolution or does it point to some kind of 'design' behind everything we know?

edit on 6-2-2012 by donhuangenaro because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 02:37 PM by ElohimJD

The following quote is from:

A Trip Into the Supernatural by: Roger J Morneau

"Evolution
It was all very interesting to hear about this, as I was informed that after the great General Counsel, it was decided that Lucifer would tutor Charles Darwin personally. So in setting up the principles of his theories of evolution, Darwin was tutored by Satan himself, the master fallen angel. And at that time it was well understood, by this mastermind and his spirit counselors that if a person were led to believe in the theory of evolution, it would in his mind and heart destroy completely any confidence in the Biblical record of creation week, as detailed in the book of Genesis. This would also effectively destroy all belief in the fall of human kind, and in God’s plan of redemption. Thus in one master stroke they could do away with all of the foundational historical realities which point to the reality of man’s rebellion against his Maker and his desperate need for salvation.

Now the high priest made a unique statement, he said that according to the spirit intelligences, anyone who teaches other persons the theory of evolution is considered to be a minister of a great religious system. You see they actually understood it to be a religious system, this theory of evolution. This is because it was ingeniously devised by the master himself, as a system of schooling people to disqualify themselves - by making a spiritual choice - to reject the reality of the Creator and of Christ’s future eternal kingdom.

And the priest explained to us that every teacher of this theory is recognized in the spirit world, as a person of great value to the master’s kingdom, and such teachers receive a very special unction from Lucifer himself who gives them great capacity and power to induce spiritual blindness, to totally convince and convert the mind. And that’s not all; the high priest said that the master considers teachers of evolution to be so valuable to him that in the sight of all the inhabitants of the galaxies, he assigns a special retinue of his bright and beautiful angels to follow that educator throughout all the remainder of his/her life. He would thus have the billions of unfallen inhabitants of the galaxies to know that he is bestowing the greatest of honors upon his chosen workers among humankind, until the great controversy between he and the Creator is finished. Too say the least, this was all quite enlightening to hear."

IMO one of the greatest tools Satan has ever used to decieve mankind through intellectual vanity is the theory of Evolution. A scientific THEORY that goes against scientific LAW (i.e. Law of biogenesis).

God Bless,

reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 07:00 PM by Barcs

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
well, and I have not ever met more arrogant person in my life (believe me, I've seen them a lot)...

I don't consider it arrogant to call somebody out when post blatantly false information that has nothing to do with the thread.

but theory that states everything became to existence exploding from nothing (nothing exploded, get it?)

Wrong. Science doesn't claim that 'nothing' exploded.

tornado sweeping through a junkyard creating fully functional Boeing 747

Wrong. Not even close. Go find me the scientific studies on this probability and how you calculated such absurd odds. That Boeing comparison is merely the latest creationist / ID buzz words

Call me arrogant if you'd like, but I'll play that role to hold you accountable for what you claim.

no matter, you asked for the scientific proof, here is a very simple comparison between a mouse neural cell and a simulated map of the universe:

is this also result of coincidental evolution or does it point to some kind of 'design' behind everything we know?

Scientific proof? Huh? If anything that shows that we ARE the universe. Where you get intelligent design from 2 similar pictures is beyond me. Again, this isn't new compelling evidence, and certainly is not scientific. It's not evidence of a creator or creation event. It is "wow look how similar that is! I wonder if that means.. *fill in blank here*"

edit on 6-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 07:10 PM by Barcs

reply to post by ElohimJD

I'm going to start flagging these as spam because it has absolutely nothing to do with the thread, it is nonsense, and flat out wrong. It's funny how desperate people are clinging onto an ancient story book as literal absolute truth. Do you honestly believe Jesus would want you to promote his religion using deception and lies such as the ones above? I don't think he'd attack a field of science that he knows nothing about. He would let it be, even if he disagreed. That's what you guys need to do, because only small children would fall for any of the nonsense that is claimed in this section almost on a daily basis.

edit on 6-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 6-2-2012 @ 10:33 PM by Astyanax

reply to post by donhuangenaro

is this also result of coincidental evolution or does it point to some kind of 'design' behind everything we know?

It is the result of matter obeying the same laws of physics on the cosmic as well as the microscopic scale, being moved in similar ways by similar (though not necessarily identical) forces, because that is how nature works. It results from the same processes that make a shoreline on Earth look similar at every scale from a satellite photo taken from thousand of miles up to a mobile-phone camera shot showing a few feet of seashore. It is the result of fractal patterns that take identical form on different levels of scale because the same equations of force, motion and friction apply on all those scales.

We've seen the comparison before. It impresses the mystically-minded ('as above, so below'

) and the scientifically naive, but it is meaningless.

Oh, and your wind-through-a-junkyard-creates-747 analogy is as old as the hills. The first person to come up with it was Sir Fred Hoyle, at one time Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, who didn't like Darwinism because he thought it conflicted with his own pet theory of panspermia. It's a stupid, false analogy because it suggests that evolution is random. Evolution is not random, although the mutations on which evolution acts are.

If these are the best arguments opponents of evolution can produce after twenty years of intelligent-design propaganda, it is only too obvious that ID has failed in its attempts to discredit evolution.

Intelligent design is dead.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 07:34 AM by vasaga

If Intelligent Design is so dead, why are you so busy killing it all the time, among a bunch of scientists who are constantly in a war to kill it?

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 07:38 AM by HappyBunny

Originally posted by vasaga
If Intelligent Design is so dead, why are you so busy killing it all the time, among a bunch of scientists who are constantly in a war to kill it?

Because the political and religious machine keeps trying to resurrect it and impose it on our kids in schools?

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 07:39 AM by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by donhuangenaro

is this also result of coincidental evolution or does it point to some kind of 'design' behind everything we know?

It is the result of matter obeying the same laws of physics on the cosmic as well as the microscopic scale, being moved in similar ways by similar (though not necessarily identical) forces, because that is how nature works. It results from the same processes that make a shoreline on Earth look similar at every scale from a satellite photo taken from thousand of miles up to a mobile-phone camera shot showing a few feet of seashore. It is the result of fractal patterns that take identical form on different levels of scale because the same equations of force, motion and friction apply on all those scales.

Bingo. Every living organism obeys the laws of physics. That's it in one.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 08:05 AM by vasaga

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by vasaga
If Intelligent Design is so dead, why are you so busy killing it all the time, among a bunch of scientists who are constantly in a war to kill it?

Because the political and religious machine keeps trying to resurrect it and impose it on our kids in schools?

So it's not dead then?

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 08:10 AM by HappyBunny

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by vasaga
If Intelligent Design is so dead, why are you so busy killing it all the time, among a bunch of scientists who are constantly in a war to kill it?

Because the political and religious machine keeps trying to resurrect it and impose it on our kids in schools?
So it's not dead then?

It is, but they keep trying to raise it from the grave, especially in the Bible Belt states. Fortunately most people are smart enough to see why allowing it to be taught would be a very bad idea. Not only do the taxpayers not want their money being spent on it, but you're not doing your kids any favors by teaching them that it's a valid scientific theory. That's what church is for.

If they want it taught, IMO, it should be under comparative religions, philosophy, or mythology, where it belongs.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 08:16 AM by vasaga

Mythology... HAHA. I would say philosophy.. Which is much needed. Scientists suck at philosophy nowadays.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 08:18 AM by HappyBunny

Originally posted by vasaga
Mythology... HAHA. I would say philosophy.. Which is much needed. Scientists suck at philosophy nowadays.

Unless it's Kuhn. Then most of them can quote verbatim!

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 09:40 AM by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by vasaga
If Intelligent Design is so dead, why are you so busy killing it all the time, among a bunch of scientists who are constantly in a war to kill it?

Because the political and religious machine keeps trying to resurrect it and impose it on our kids in schools?
So it's not dead then?

Didn't you post this same sillyness back 5 pages? When in doubt, ignore the counterpoints, and rehash the same argument.

We're talking ID as SCIENCE. It is dead because there is no evidence in its favor. Simple. Game over. If you have something to present, as I asked you before, you have a chance to prove its not dead. Obviously I don't expect that you'll actually back anything up that you say, but I guess I'll see you in another 6 pages or so? Nobody's saying your faith is wrong, just that ID is not backed by any science whatsoever, hasn't made any progress in scientific community or in the court system. It's dead, except for a few select fundamentalists that won't let it go even though its beyond debunked.

edit on 7-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 11:53 AM by HappyBunny

Originally posted by vasaga
Mythology... HAHA. I would say philosophy.. Which is much needed. Scientists suck at philosophy nowadays.

No, mythology sounds good. That's where put all the creation stories--you know, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Aztec, Chinese, Sumerian...anything that doesn't agree with Christianity's version of events, even though they're describing the same thing, just in a different way.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 02:06 PM by iterationzero

reply to post by vasaga

I keep trying to resurrect Cthulhu so he can impose his will on the mass of humanity. Doesn't mean he's not still dead.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 08:21 AM by taderhold

reply to post by Barcs

I do not want to move my debate to another thread. I am merely trying to illustrate that many of the posters, unlike you, are incoherent in their arguments. They attempt to impose upon anyone with an opposing view criteria which most of them, when asked to, cannot do themselves.

Adios. This is my last post on this thread.

reply posted on 9-2-2012 @ 10:42 AM by Barcs

Originally posted by taderhold
reply to post by Barcs

I do not want to move my debate to another thread. I am merely trying to illustrate that many of the posters, unlike you, are incoherent in their arguments. They attempt to impose upon anyone with an opposing view criteria which most of them, when asked to, cannot do themselves.

Adios. This is my last post on this thread.

So you are saying that even though people ask for evidence of ID when claimed as fact, they cannot provide evidence of evolution when requested. I see where you are coming from but that's not entirely true. Tons upon tons upon tons of information has been posted in this section, probably in this thread as well, showing clear objective evidence that evolution happened. Your argument was one of the many misconceptions of evolution, ie that speciation is a different process from genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Species is really about labeling. If you take a human from today and tried to get them to breed with a human from 200,000 years ago, it would most likely be a success. If you tried to get them to breed from someone from 300,000 years ago (homo antecessor), it would not work. However, if you took a human from 100,000 years ago, it probably would because the genetic variation would not be too much to breed. So the species line would be somewhere else in relation to them. We draw the species lines based on where we are today, but in reality those lines we draw are merely labels. I just made this same argument in the prove evolution wrong thread. It's just one of those common misunderstandings that some special process needs to happen to cause speciation. Organisms simply change over time and all evidence points to this.

edit on 9-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-3-2012 @ 09:03 PM by Microscopictopic

The rate of mutated dna between generations is to low for there to be enough time to evolve in the time limit they have given us. Now to evolve from some amino acids would take, well, much longer.