whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Evolution & Creationism => Topic started by: monkeymind on March 13, 2012, 06:15:52 PM

Title: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: monkeymind on March 13, 2012, 06:15:52 PM
Intelligent Design (ID) is a dishonest way of presenting creationism as science in an attempt to get it taught in science classes as an alternative “theory” to evolution. However, ID is not science and is not intelligent.

Intelligent design (creationism repackaged) is not science, can not be separated from religion, and therefore teaching it in schools has been ruled unconstitutional in a court of law (Kitzmiller Vrs. Dover).

Although ID proponents insist that it is a viable alternative to evolution, they are vague as to when and where an intelligent entity intervened and they contend that evolution is mostly wrong while offering no alternative to common descent.

A critical component of intelligent design is Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity. It does not hold up in a court of law or in the court of scientific opinion.

Although, Behe doesn’t claim that a particular deity intervened in the course of earth history, it is clear his agenda is a Christian one. Behe is affiliated with the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC). He is a senior fellow of the CRSC. The director of CRSC has stated that the goals of the institute are to “promote Christian theism and to defeat philosophical materialism.”

Since the Supreme Court had ruled that creationism is religion, and therefore not to be taught in school, creationists repackaged creationism as intelligent design. To see their agenda, read The Wedge Document as reprinted by the National Center for Science Education:

Quote
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Since the failure to get ID or creationism in school, creationists have tried different tactics, using their wedge approach. This is from The National Science Center for Education website (http://ncse.com/book/export/html/116 (http://ncse.com/book/export/html/116)):

Quote
Although in the 1990s IDC advocates had encouraged the teaching of ID in public school science classes as an alternative to evolution, in the early 2000s they shifted their strategy. IDCs currently concentrate their efforts on attacking evolution. Under innocuous-sounding guises such as "academic freedom," "critical analysis of evolution," or "teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution," IDCs attempt to encourage teachers to teach students wrongly that there is a "controversy" among scientists over whether evolution has occurred. So-called "evidence against evolution" or "weaknesses of evolution" consist of the same sorts of long-discredited arguments against evolution which have been a staple of creationism since the 1920s and earlier.
Not only are the leaders of the Intelligent Design Creationists dishonest, they are not very intelligent. All these attempts are doomed to failure and will fade away in the clear light of science and reason. As science continues to strip away the myths and superstitions of past ages, and paint over man’s ignorance with the bright colors of knowledge and understanding, the image of an intelligent designer fades and disappears into the background.

Perhaps a better approach for creationists to take, is to agree with the obvious fact that evolution is the best explanation that we have for the history of life on earth. They could take the higher ground, align themselves with fact not fiction, and still keep their notion that, “God did it.”

Creationists could take their cue from Francis Collins, physician and geneticist, former leader of the National Human Genome Research Institute and current director of the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian that rejects Intelligent Design.

Collins works within the scientific community apparently with no religious agenda or conflicting interests:
Quote
In October 2009, shortly after his nomination as NIH director, Collins stated in an interview in the New York Times, “I have made it clear that I have no religious agenda for the N.I.H., and I think the vast majority of scientists have been reassured by that and have moved on.” [Harris, Gardiner (October 6, 2009). "For N.I.H. Chief, Issues of Identity and Culture". The New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2010.]

From Wikipedia -
Quote
Francis Collins: In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship". In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects Young Earth creationism and intelligent design. His own belief system is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos.

Let’s take a look at Behe’s irreducible complexity and compare it to emergent complexity.

Irreducible complexity from wikipedia:
Quote
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]

In 2000, biologist Massimo Pigliucci criticized The Design Inference in BioScience writing, "Too bad he missed the solution to this riddle, which has been proposed several times during the last few centuries, most prominently (and in various fashions) by Hume (1779), Darwin (1859), and Jacques Monod (1971). According to these thinkers, if a given phenomenon occurs with low probability and also conforms to a pre-specified pattern, then there are two possible conclusions: intelligent design (this concept is synonymous with human intervention) or necessity, which can be caused by a nonrandom, deterministic force such as natural selection."

Emergence from wikipedia:
Quote
In philosophy, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.

Rather than spend a lot of time dissecting the idea of irreducible complexity, let’s look at what science says and common observation shows us. We can then easily recognize pseudoscience when we see it.

Neurons organizing into neural networks, water molecules forming snowflakes and chemicals forming single cells are all examples of the simple becoming the complex.

Telecommunication companies find the optimum location for their com towers, bees find the optimum location to put their bee hives and prediction markets find their customers, all using swarm intelligence (a form of emergence).
.
Bottom-up, self correcting systems such as Amazon.com and wikipedia, are
based on the principal of emerging complexity.

Emerging complexity involves a few simple rules and lots of interactions between individual components, to produce hurricanes in the ocean, the creatures in the desert and the plants in the tropics. What science has discovered in all these examples are a few basic principals. Here are three: Quantity produces quality, the simpler the better, and the more random the interactions the better.

What is the mechanism of evolution? Heritability, natural selection and mutation….and lots of time. Couldn’t be a better recipe for life!

Cellular automata can be used as a metaphor for the evolutionary process
which can result in convergence, divergence and extinction.

For a visual representation of how this works, spend a little time looking at cellular automata. Apply a few simple rules and watch divergence, extinction or convergence in action. A successful random combination of black and white boxes, and a beautiful complex pattern emerges. An unsuccessful combination and extinction. Extinction happens most of the time, just like in nature.

Professor Robert Sapolsky, of Stanford University, gives an excellent lecture explaining the principal of emerging complexity and uses cellular automata here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ZuWbX-CyE&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ZuWbX-CyE&feature=player_embedded)

Here is a real life illustration of how this emerging complexity works with bees determining where to nest optimally near a food source.

A first generation bee leaves the hive, finds food and returns randomly to the hive. It gets in the middle of the group of bees there and does a figure eight dance wiggling its tail. The angle of the tail indicates the direction to the food source, the extent to which it wiggles its tail indicates how far away to the food source, and the duration of time it wiggles its tail indicates how good the food source is.

A 2nd generation bee returns randomly and bumps into another bee doing a dance and goes where the longer dancing bee tells it to go. So we see random interaction between bees as they come and go. Longer dance increases odds of other bees bumping into them. Briefly dancing bees are less likely to bump into other bees, and all this optimizes the route to the food source. Eventually the hive moves closer to the best food source.

Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: MadBunny on March 13, 2012, 06:26:46 PM
Emergence could be a viable theory, if it is science.

Is it falsifiable?
Are there predictions and experiments that can be performed repeatedly?

"Intelligent Design" meets neither of those criteria, so it's basically a non-starter as far as science goes.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: monkeymind on March 13, 2012, 08:45:14 PM
Emergence could be a viable theory, if it is science.

Is it falsifiable?
Are there predictions and experiments that can be performed repeatedly?
Of course, natural selection is probably the best example of emerging complexity.

Quote
Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.

In some theories of particle physics, even such basic structures as mass, space, and time are viewed as emergent phenomena, arising from more fundamental concepts such as the Higgs boson or strings. In some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the perception of a deterministic reality, in which all objects have a definite position, momentum, and so forth, is actually an emergent phenomenon, with the true state of matter being described instead by a wavefunction which need not have a single position or momentum.

Most of the laws of physics themselves as we experience them today appear to have emerged during the course of time making emergence the most fundamental principle in the universe and raising the question of what might be the most fundamental law of physics from which all others emerged. Chemistry can in turn be viewed as an emergent property of the laws of physics. Biology (including biological evolution) can be viewed as an emergent property of the laws of chemistry. Finally, psychology could at least theoretically be understood as an emergent property of neurobiological laws.

Emergence can be observed in spontaneous order, economics, internet, architecture and cities, computer AI, language, political philosophy, religion, art, human sciences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence)

Introduction to emergent order video (5 minutes):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKaD4gk9Btg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKaD4gk9Btg)


Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Frank on March 15, 2012, 12:18:39 PM

Perhaps a better approach for creationists to take, is to agree with the obvious fact that evolution is the best explanation that we have for the history of life on earth. They could take the higher ground, align themselves with fact not fiction, and still keep their notion that, “God did it.”


No they couldn't. The whole point of ID/creationism is the idea that "god" placed us on this planet for a reason and that we as humans have a special relationship with this "god" that no other species on this planet has. Evolution states that we are no more or less special than any other species that has managed to make it this far. Under evolution we are no different to ants in as much as they have found a way to adapt and evolve to their present state just as humans have. Now to say to creationists that humans are no more special to "god" than ants is simply unacceptable.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: jaimehlers on March 15, 2012, 12:29:30 PM
Except that if they say God did evolution, then they can still claim specialness.  The specialness of being the most intelligent species on the planet, if nothing else.  After all, "intelligence wouldn't exist if God didn't want it to".
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Dante on March 15, 2012, 12:34:15 PM
Except that if they say God did evolution, then they can still claim specialness.  The specialness of being the most intelligent species on the planet, if nothing else.  After all, "intelligence wouldn't exist if God didn't want it to".

That would raise the interesting problem of "original sin" though.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Frank on March 15, 2012, 01:10:42 PM
Except that if they say God did evolution, then they can still claim specialness.  The specialness of being the most intelligent species on the planet, if nothing else.  After all, "intelligence wouldn't exist if God didn't want it to".

Would the most intelligent species on the planet vote for Rick Santorum? Why does religion have more followers in places were there is the highest levels of ignorance. Intelligence has got nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: jaimehlers on March 15, 2012, 01:18:36 PM
Would the most intelligent species on the planet vote for Rick Santorum? Why does religion have more followers in places were there is the highest levels of ignorance. Intelligence has got nothing to do with it.
*eyeroll*  Come now, do you really think those are good proofs that humans aren't the most intelligent species on the planet?
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Frank on March 15, 2012, 01:36:16 PM
Would the most intelligent species on the planet vote for Rick Santorum? Why does religion have more followers in places were there is the highest levels of ignorance. Intelligence has got nothing to do with it.
*eyeroll*  Come now, do you really think those are good proofs that humans aren't the most intelligent species on the planet?

Firstly how do you know that human are the most intelligent species on the planet? Take dolphins. Do they make war on each other? Do they allow other dolphins to starve to death? If we're the most inteligent then I'd sooner be a dolphin.

Secondly what I'm saying is that creationists don't want to be special because of intelligence they want to be special because we are the only species that "god" designed in his own image. The only species that is endowed with a "soul" which no other species have.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: jaimehlers on March 15, 2012, 01:58:47 PM
Firstly how do you know that human are the most intelligent species on the planet? Take dolphins. Do they make war on each other? Do they allow other dolphins to starve to death? If we're the most inteligent then I'd sooner be a dolphin.
Tell you what, once you can prove that dolphins are more intelligent than humans, then I'll be happy to recant my statement.  But you missed the point, in any case.

Quote from: Frank
Secondly what I'm saying is that creationists don't want to be special because of intelligence they want to be special because we are the only species that "god" designed in his own image. The only species that is endowed with a "soul" which no other species have.
It doesn't matter why they think they're special.  You're just assuming that it has to be because "God created us in his own image", and so it is for a number of people.  But they could just as easily use the fact that humans are the most intelligent species on the planet, or the dominant species on the planet.  It doesn't have to be what you said, and if they were sensible, they'd go with something like that rather than hysterically trying to pretend evolution is untrue.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Frank on March 15, 2012, 02:27:27 PM
Firstly how do you know that human are the most intelligent species on the planet? Take dolphins. Do they make war on each other? Do they allow other dolphins to starve to death? If we're the most inteligent then I'd sooner be a dolphin.
Tell you what, once you can prove that dolphins are more intelligent than humans, then I'll be happy to recant my statement.  But you missed the point, in any case.

Quote from: Frank
Secondly what I'm saying is that creationists don't want to be special because of intelligence they want to be special because we are the only species that "god" designed in his own image. The only species that is endowed with a "soul" which no other species have.
It doesn't matter why they think they're special.  You're just assuming that it has to be because "God created us in his own image", and so it is for a number of people.  But they could just as easily use the fact that humans are the most intelligent species on the planet, or the dominant species on the planet.  It doesn't have to be what you said, and if they were sensible, they'd go with something like that rather than hysterically trying to pretend evolution is untrue.

But they are not sensible that's why they are religious. Which brings us back to where we started.

BTW. I don't know if dolphins are more intelligent than us then again I don't know that they're not. We live on the land they live in the ocean. They have their own society, language, as do we. So what do I use as a measure to decide which species is most intelligent?

Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: jaimehlers on March 15, 2012, 02:47:39 PM
But they are not sensible that's why they are religious. Which brings us back to where we started.
I don't buy into axioms like this.  Further, this is sloppy thinking.  There are atheists who are not sensible; there are religious people who are quite sensible in general.  You can't argue that there are not sensible religious people by saying that being religious makes them not sensible, because that's a circular argument.

Quote from: Frank
BTW. I don't know if dolphins are more intelligent than us then again I don't know that they're not. We live on the land they live in the ocean. They have their own society, language, as do we. So what do I use as a measure to decide which species is most intelligent?
It's becoming more and more clear that other mammals have their own societies and languages as well, so clearly that is not a good gauge.  But tool use is generally considered to be a sign of intelligence - not just using tools which happen to be handy, but being able to make and store tools.  So, too, is the ability to change the environment.  In any case, this is not especially important.  Unless you can show that other animals are more intelligent than humans, it is a reasonable presumption that humans are the most intelligent species on the planet.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Frank on March 15, 2012, 03:09:29 PM

It's becoming more and more clear that other mammals have their own societies and languages as well, so clearly that is not a good gauge.  But tool use is generally considered to be a sign of intelligence - not just using tools which happen to be handy, but being able to make and store tools.  So, too, is the ability to change the environment.  In any case, this is not especially important.  Unless you can show that other animals are more intelligent than humans, it is a reasonable presumption that humans are the most intelligent species on the planet.

I don't accept that. It appears to me that every species on this planet is as intelligent as it needs to be. Dolphins don't have a need to change their enviroment or use tools we on the other hand do. They appear to be quite happy without these things. So if a species doesn't do something because they have no need for it does that make them less intelligent than a species that does.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: monkeymind on March 15, 2012, 03:23:47 PM

Perhaps a better approach for creationists to take, is to agree with the obvious fact that evolution is the best explanation that we have for the history of life on earth. They could take the higher ground, align themselves with fact not fiction, and still keep their notion that, “God did it.”


No they couldn't. The whole point of ID/creationism is the idea that "god" placed us on this planet for a reason and that we as humans have a special relationship with this "god" that no other species on this planet has. Evolution states that we are no more or less special than any other species that has managed to make it this far. Under evolution we are no different to ants in as much as they have found a way to adapt and evolve to their present state just as humans have. Now to say to creationists that humans are no more special to "god" than ants is simply unacceptable.

Francis Collins' Biologos is a "better approach" than Intelligent Design in my opinion...but I'll let the religious fight that out among themselves.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: jaimehlers on March 15, 2012, 03:35:26 PM
I don't accept that. It appears to me that every species on this planet is as intelligent as it needs to be. Dolphins don't have a need to change their enviroment or use tools we on the other hand do. They appear to be quite happy without these things. So if a species doesn't do something because they have no need for it does that make them less intelligent than a species that does.
Well, that's fair.  But nonetheless, the point still stands that without criteria to compare their intelligence to ours, we can make no reasonable judgment on how intelligent they are.  If we don't know what their intelligence is, how can we rationally decide whether they're smarter than humans?
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: monkeymind on March 15, 2012, 03:41:17 PM
Quote
Evangelical attitudes on evolution are two-sided: all polls show a fat majority for total rejection, about 65%, but a little over a quarter of US evangelicals affirm the statement that “humans and other living things have evolved over time” (a recent Pew Forum survey).  Evangelicals who accept evolution, the basic organizing principle of modern biology, are therefore a far from endangered species: in fact, there are about 19 million of them (i.e., 25% of the evangelical 26.3% of 300 million Americans), about the same as the 18.4 million or so Americans who tell Gallup that they believe in no God or universal spirit.  Going by the Pew survey, only 83% of “seculars” believe in evolution, so that’s, uh . . . calculator . . . about 15 million people in the USA who believe in no God and also accept evolution.  Significantly less than the 19 million evolution-accepting evangelical Christians.

For me, that’s an eyebrow-raiser.  You’re more likely to meet an evolution-accepting evangelical Christian on a typical American street than to meet an evolution-accepting atheist or agnostic.
http://theotherjournal.com/s-word/2011/10/16/at-biologos-evangelicals-break-with-stereotype/ (http://theotherjournal.com/s-word/2011/10/16/at-biologos-evangelicals-break-with-stereotype/)
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Dante on March 16, 2012, 12:18:52 PM
Quote
Evangelical attitudes on evolution are two-sided: all polls show a fat majority for total rejection, about 65%, but a little over a quarter of US evangelicals affirm the statement that “humans and other living things have evolved over time” (a recent Pew Forum survey).  Evangelicals who accept evolution, the basic organizing principle of modern biology, are therefore a far from endangered species: in fact, there are about 19 million of them (i.e., 25% of the evangelical 26.3% of 300 million Americans), about the same as the 18.4 million or so Americans who tell Gallup that they believe in no God or universal spirit.  Going by the Pew survey, only 83% of “seculars” believe in evolution, so that’s, uh . . . calculator . . . about 15 million people in the USA who believe in no God and also accept evolution.  Significantly less than the 19 million evolution-accepting evangelical Christians.

For me, that’s an eyebrow-raiser.  You’re more likely to meet an evolution-accepting evangelical Christian on a typical American street than to meet an evolution-accepting atheist or agnostic.
http://theotherjournal.com/s-word/2011/10/16/at-biologos-evangelicals-break-with-stereotype/ (http://theotherjournal.com/s-word/2011/10/16/at-biologos-evangelicals-break-with-stereotype/)

Interesting. So, I wonder what the seculars, who don't accept evolution, think all these species came from?
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: monkeymind on March 16, 2012, 12:27:11 PM
Yeah, I thot about that too. ^^^

My reason for posting this is to show that there is room for Christians to incorporate science into their beliefs. Ken Ham and PZ Myers would argue from their opposing POVs, of course. I'm offering a sort of middle ground as an option to theists.

Offering a little wiggle room is OK sometimes. Here is an extreme example:If a terrorist offers to let women and children hostages go, but says he's going to keep the men, I would probably agree to that, before continuing to negotiate.

Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Cyberia on March 16, 2012, 03:01:50 PM
That would raise the interesting problem of "original sin" though.

THIS is the problem they have with evolution, and I wish more atheists would recognize it.


If Adam and Eve were not real people, then Original Sin never existed, and so there was no reason for Jesus to come down and "save" us.


Really, seriously, evolution strikes at the very CORE of Christianity in a way that is ONLY apparent to the "smart" fundamentalists and those intimately versed in bible scripture.  For those who view Genesis as a metaphor, this isn't problematic, but for the literalists out there, evolution eviscerates the "salvation of christ" and the whole purpose of the fairy tale.  Granted there are a lot of stupid evangelicals, but they are the sheep.  The evangelical "shepherds" see evolution as an "anti-christ", literally, since it MOOTS christ's purpose.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Dante on March 16, 2012, 03:23:14 PM


If Adam and Eve were not real people, then Original Sin never existed, and so there was no reason for Jesus to come down and "save" us.


I can't recall ever seeing any kind of argument against this from any xian, ever.

Quote
<snip> For those who view Genesis as a metaphor, this isn't problematic,

Seems to me that it would be quite problematic. How would those believers that accept evolution justify the sacrifice? Perhaps the sacrifice was metaphorical as well?  ;)

Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: monkeymind on March 16, 2012, 04:00:44 PM
OK, well not where I wanted to go...

But yeah, evolution does pose problems for the literalist.

Quote
The Bible is clear about our origins. Genesis 1–3 were written in a historical narrative style, like the rest of Genesis, depicting historical people and events. Moses later confirms that Genesis was a literal, historical account of God’s creation “in six days” (Exodus 20:11). Jesus Christ confirms that God made Adam and Eve “at the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6). These passages exclude any possibility of evolution and an “old earth.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n4/blurring-the-line (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n4/blurring-the-line)
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: monkeymind on March 16, 2012, 04:09:25 PM
Let the theists argue it out!


Hovind vrs Callaghan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwXRkkTeFRE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwXRkkTeFRE)

Behe vrs Fox
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/michael-behe-and-keith-fox-debate-theistic-evolution-vs-intelligent-design/ (http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/michael-behe-and-keith-fox-debate-theistic-evolution-vs-intelligent-design/)


Quote
    First, good hermeneutics and sound exegesis must leave the room. Texts in Scripture (Romans 5, I Cor 15, Luke 3, Gen 1-3, etc.) either have to be reinvented and reinterpreted in ways so creative that even the Apostle Paul would have been confused, or, they are simply turned upside down (i.e. I Cor. 15:45 “the first man Adam” = “the first man is not actually Adam”). Every historical reference to Genesis 1-11 must simply be mistaken or radically reinterpreted; every reference to Adam as the first human being must be mistaken or radically reinterpreted, etc.
    When sound exegesis is sacrificed, then sound theology goes out the window as well. Not only does the doctrine of sin and its imputation (both penalty and guilt) become difficult to attain in Paul’s writing, but the very essence of human nature – being an image of God – comes under fire. Since human beings evolved from apes (theistic ev. presupposition), then human beings couldn’t possibly have been created in God’s image – at least immediately and directly.


http://www.realapologetics.org/blog/2010/05/19/whats-really-at-stake-in-the-theistic-evolution-debate/
 (http://www.realapologetics.org/blog/2010/05/19/whats-really-at-stake-in-the-theistic-evolution-debate/)
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: rockv12 on March 16, 2012, 07:11:19 PM
Intelligent Design (ID) is a dishonest way of presenting creationism as science in an attempt to get it taught in science classes as an alternative “theory” to evolution. However, ID is not science and is not intelligent.

Intelligent design (creationism repackaged) is not science, can not be separated from religion, and therefore teaching it in schools has been ruled unconstitutional in a court of law (Kitzmiller Vrs. Dover).


Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition. 
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: wright on March 16, 2012, 07:32:19 PM
Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition. 

Why not? Teach it as philosophy, or as the offshoot of creationism that it is. As part of the repeated failure of creationists to get their religion taught in public schools. Just not as science.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Frank on March 16, 2012, 07:53:37 PM
Intelligent Design (ID) is a dishonest way of presenting creationism as science in an attempt to get it taught in science classes as an alternative “theory” to evolution. However, ID is not science and is not intelligent.

Intelligent design (creationism repackaged) is not science, can not be separated from religion, and therefore teaching it in schools has been ruled unconstitutional in a court of law (Kitzmiller Vrs. Dover).


Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition.

No it doesn't.

It's a widely held belief in American society that the president is secretly a muslim, fascist, communist, socialist, the anti Christ. Maybe they should teach that as well.

Just because something is "widely" believed doesn't make it true.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: monkeymind on March 16, 2012, 08:14:39 PM
Intelligent Design (ID) is a dishonest way of presenting creationism as science in an attempt to get it taught in science classes as an alternative “theory” to evolution. However, ID is not science and is not intelligent.

Intelligent design (creationism repackaged) is not science, can not be separated from religion, and therefore teaching it in schools has been ruled unconstitutional in a court of law (Kitzmiller Vrs. Dover).


Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition.

I'm all for creationism being taught in school, as long as it is taught as part of religious instruction along side other religions, not as an alternative to evolution in science class.

In my opinion all the major religions should be taught in school with equal billing. That would be the best way for children to see it for what it is.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: MadBunny on March 16, 2012, 09:18:15 PM
Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition.

Why do you support the idea of religious instruction supplanting fact based learning?
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: rockv12 on March 16, 2012, 09:49:36 PM
Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition.

Why do you support the idea of religious instruction supplanting fact based learning?

There is no mention of Christianity in Creationism.  And evolution is NOT fact based.  It's a theory.  There is ZERO scientific evidence that everything popped into existence. 
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Aaron123 on March 16, 2012, 10:18:44 PM
There is no mention of Christianity in Creationism.

That's because they're trying to hide the religion angle.


Quote
And evolution is NOT fact based.  It's a theory.


I'm sure someone said this to you before, but if you're going to criticize something... KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

----
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
-----


Quote
There is ZERO scientific evidence that everything popped into existence.

I agree 100%  So................... what does this have to do with evolution.




Oh wait... you think evolution means "things 'poofed' into being"

Again... know what you're talking about before criticizing it.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: MadBunny on March 16, 2012, 10:23:51 PM
There is no mention of Christianity in Creationism.  And evolution is NOT fact based.  It's a theory.  There is ZERO scientific evidence that everything popped into existence.


First you are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.  The two have nothing to do with each other.  Try your strawman about things 'popping into existence' elsewhere.  That's your argument, not mine.

Second, it appears that you don't know how science works.
For science to be 'real science' it needs to be a few things, such as falsifiable, repeatable and observable.

Third, while there is no specific mention of Christianity in 'creation science' there is mention of a creator.  It's the exegesis of the term after all.



Please, tell me what a 'creation' based experiment would look like.  I'd honestly like to know how that would work.

Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: rockv12 on March 17, 2012, 12:35:58 AM
There is no mention of Christianity in Creationism.

That's because they're trying to hide the religion angle.


Quote
And evolution is NOT fact based.  It's a theory.


I'm sure someone said this to you before, but if you're going to criticize something... KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

----
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
-----


Quote
There is ZERO scientific evidence that everything popped into existence.

I agree 100%  So................... what does this have to do with evolution.




Oh wait... you think evolution means "things 'poofed' into being"

Again... know what you're talking about before criticizing it.
\

As much as you'd like to think so, evolution has not been proven.  Foundations....you must first have a beginning for a point to be made.  Evolution starts with life.  Ok...fine.  How did that life get there?  That's where the problem lies.  Where did matter come from?  Where did the matter form?  It's always been there?  It's always been floating in the cosmos?  Well, yea.  That's all we know.  Well, that is just impossible.  Our minds can't grasp such a concept.  Therefore, there is something that we don't understand!  By golly, we can't comprehend or explain it!  Well, how about the concept of God?  It's the same as your faith in the unknown.  Why can't the "foundations" be taught in school? 
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Aaron123 on March 17, 2012, 01:00:37 AM
As much as you'd like to think so, evolution has not been proven.

Proof is for math.  Sciene is about evidence.  Evidence for evolution has been found over and over.


Quote
Foundations....you must first have a beginning for a point to be made.  Evolution starts with life.

That's......oversimplifying it quite a bit.


Quote
Ok...fine.  How did that life get there?  That's where the problem lies.
 

You're asking a question unrelated to evolution.

Plus, this is an argument from ignorance.


Quote
Where did matter come from?  Where did the matter form?  It's always been there?  It's always been floating in the cosmos?

On their own, these are good questions.  But in this context, they've become an argument from ignorance.  Again; this is unrelated to the subject of evolution.


Quote
Well, yea.  That's all we know.  Well, that is just impossible.  Our minds can't grasp such a concept.  Therefore, there is something that we don't understand!
 

Not only is this an argument from ignorance, it's arguing from incredulity.  Just because we don't have all the details, it does not make an idea invalid.


Quote
By golly, we can't comprehend or explain it!  Well, how about the concept of God?  It's the same as your faith in the unknown. 

Correction: you mean you can't comprehend things.  In another thread, I asked for your thoughts on the "god of the gaps" concepts.  I never got a reply on it.  Whatever the case, I can tell you LOVE placing 'god' in the gaps of your knowledge.


Quote
Why can't the "foundations" be taught in school?

Because "goddidit" is not sciene.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Aspie on March 17, 2012, 01:12:09 AM
Using that logic shouldn't we throw all scientific theories out the window? Theory of relativity? Theory of gravity? Germ theory? How did the gravity get there? Where did the germs come from? They can't explain everything about everything. Why do you feel this is a burden that only evolutionary theory must bear?

Evolutionary theory sufficiently explains what it actually pertains to - biodiversity. Demanding that it must go above and beyond is nothing more than a case of special pleading.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: MadBunny on March 17, 2012, 01:12:54 AM
Well, how about the concept of God?  It's the same as your faith in the unknown.  Why can't the "foundations" be taught in school?

Why would you want to teach religion instead of science in a science curriculum?

Intelligent Design isn't science, neither is 'creationism'.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: monkeymind on March 17, 2012, 06:08:28 AM
Lots of "non-science" is taught in school.  Since it is a widely believed idea in our society, it deserves some recognition.

Why do you support the idea of religious instruction supplanting fact based learning?

There is no mention of Christianity in Creationism.  And evolution is NOT fact based.  It's a theory.  There is ZERO scientific evidence that everything popped into existence.
Well, really you are partly correct, there is no mention of Christianity necessary in  creationism. There are many, many, creation myths. However the majority of religious folks in this country are Christians, so of course which god did it is theirs. However, as spelled out in the OP, the ID movement is being put forth by Christians as part of the Wedge. So really you  do know where it is coming from and so this is dishonesty on your part.

Evolution is fact based, and it really is time for you to start at the beginning, but at the beginning of evolution not cosmogony or abiogenesis. You have had this explained to you more than once and so you either have ignored the information, don't believe it, haven't checked it out from a source that you can trust, or, you are being dishonest. I think you are being dishonest. At the very least you are lying to yourself.

You still haven't understood the difference between facts and theory. I have offered to go through all this with you several times now, and you have declined. Therefore, you are wasting our time and I withdraw my offer to step you through it. You have no desire to learn, only to ridicule that which you do not understand. You are the typical lost creationist we see here every day.

Of course, you may not be dishonest. It could be that you are incredibly stupid. Or, fundamentally ill.

From MonkeyPedia:
Fundamentally Ill
Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against rational thought, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture such as science. In particular evolution.

The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary.  A fundamentally Ill person can never be swayed regardless of any facts or theories they are presented with. Sadly, there is no hope for these persons as there is no known cure.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Dante on March 17, 2012, 07:55:23 AM
For Rock and Jake,

What is it about evolution that makes you afraid? Why do you accept other scientific facts, but not this one?

For years, people have had to move on from one outdated world view to the more current, corrected one. The planet is not flat. Thor does not make thunder. Other worlds do exist.

Science is a tool for understanding the world around us. It does not care about your beliefs, nor mine. It is non-sentient, with no agenda, save to answer questions about how things work. And, one of the beauties of it is that it requires no faith to work. It works whether you believe it, or not. If you choose to dismiss all the evidence and rationale for any science, it doesn't care. It still works.

Are you such a narcissist that you believe science has the hidden agenda to disprove your god? To make your god irrelevant? I tell you, it does not. And why would it? To what end?

Why would science be out to disprove your god? What happens? According to you, we're in a "fallen state" anyway. Why would this make it worse? And, moreover, why would you, personally, care? Wouldn't all this have the effect of speeding toward the rapture anyway? And, isn't that a good thing for you?

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: joebbowers on March 17, 2012, 09:12:32 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/8h4tI.png)
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: MadBunny on March 17, 2012, 11:18:01 AM
Isn't it interesting how we're talking about evolution instead of creation?
Evolution instead of 'intelligent design'?

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/1165646531740.png)

Please feel free to tell us what creation science would look like. 

How would we perform a creation experiment, or an 'intelligent design' experiment?

Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Frank on March 17, 2012, 11:31:37 AM


As much as you'd like to think so, evolution has not been proven.

Is that so.


Quote
Infectious diseases strike back
The golden age of antibiotics proved to be a short-lived one. During the past few decades, many strains of bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics. An example of this is Neisseria gonorrhoeae, the bacteria that causes gonorrhea, shown at right. In the 1960s penicillin and ampicillin were able to control most cases of gonorrhea. Today, more than 24 percent of gonorrheal bacteria in the U.S. are resistant to at least one antibiotic, and 98 percent of gonorrheal bacteria in Southeast Asia are resistant to penicillin.1 Infectious bacteria are much harder to control than their predecessors were ten or twenty years ago.

Doctors miss the "good old days," when the antibiotics they prescribed consistently cured their patients. However, evolutionary theory suggests some specific tactics to help slow the rate at which bacteria become resistant to our drugs.



http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_03

Or maybe only bacteria evolves and every other living thing on this planet is frozen in time. Evolution is a proven fact. Creationism/ID is religion driven nonesense that exists for the sole purpose of giving people who should know better the idea that humans have some special position in the scheme of things that is denied to every other species on the planet.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: caveat_imperator on March 29, 2012, 04:49:56 PM
Proof is for math.

And for alcohol. :D
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Azdgari on March 29, 2012, 05:43:16 PM


If Adam and Eve were not real people, then Original Sin never existed, and so there was no reason for Jesus to come down and "save" us.

I can't recall ever seeing any kind of argument against this from any xian, ever.

Well of course they wouldn't say it:  "I object to evolution not because it isn't true, but because my faith desperately needs it not to be true!"

Who would actually admit that?  But it's still true.  According to a lot of Christian theology, the Fall is what sets the stage for the rest of their religion.  It's the reason for Jesus, for human imperfection, for the end of the world, all that jazz.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: qwan_lee on April 03, 2012, 08:43:50 PM

What is the mechanism of evolution? Heritability, natural selection and mutation….and lots of time. Couldn’t be a better recipe for life!


Evolution needs lots of time? (chuckle) Where's the evolution in bacteria and fruit flies? The students are still studying the same STATIC bacterial genus and species as they where 100+ years ago. Again, "evolution" produces no intermediate species. We all are waiting for the intermediate species to show up ANYWHERE! 7 BILLION people on earth and WHERE oh
WHERE are the intermediate human-like species?

http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/no-fruit-fly-evolution-after-600-generations-or-bacteria-evolution-after-40000-generations/

"Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long ___multigenerational__(there goes the "time" theory) studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don’t evolve—they just die."
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Alzael on April 03, 2012, 08:53:48 PM


http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/no-fruit-fly-evolution-after-600-generations-or-bacteria-evolution-after-40000-generations/

Written by a man who attended a low-ranked college. Has only worked at Christian Institutions. Done no research and published no papers that I can see evidence of and the sources are either irrelevant or over thirty years out of date.

What was this supposed to prove again?
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: jaimehlers on April 03, 2012, 10:28:28 PM
qwan_lee:  Congratulations, you have successfully managed to prove that you are no better at understanding evolution than anyone else who uses cherry-picked sources.

The link you provided is just a copy-paste of the same article posted on ICR, which to be blunt is about as unimpressive as it gets as a source.  They have a vested interest in finding anything they can to discredit evolution, regardless of how finely they have to search and even if other parts of the article, or even the paragraph, contradict those conclusions.  Third, the conclusion the article draws is not based on any research that the writer himself performed, but simply a very narrow interpretation of a handful of studies that doesn't even attempt to give the whole picture.

By the way, one of the studies mentioned was Lenski's groundbreaking study which showed a dramatic evolutionary change in a strain of E.coli, namely the ability to metabolize a new kind of nutrient that normal E.coli cannot use[1].  Yes, the very same one which your article claims the researchers only found "the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative".

Methinks that the writer of your article either misread the study, or deliberately wrote it to deceive people into thinking it was valid because it referred to actual studies.
 1. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Alzael on April 03, 2012, 10:55:29 PM
Methinks that the writer of your article either misread the study, or deliberately wrote it to deceive people into thinking it was valid because it referred to actual studies.

Most likely the second one. Thomas' credentials aren't impressive, but they're good enough that he almost certainly should have known better.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: chosenbygrace on April 04, 2012, 01:40:19 AM


http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/no-fruit-fly-evolution-after-600-generations-or-bacteria-evolution-after-40000-generations/

Written by a man who attended a low-ranked college. Has only worked at Christian Institutions. Done no research and published no papers that I can see evidence of and the sources are either irrelevant or over thirty years out of date.

What was this supposed to prove again?

Do you realize what a blatantly stupid reply that is? How deserving of a hard punch to your face that is?! Listen to yourself:

An evolutionist with little eductation points out to a creationist that his use of a so called ancient rock containing a spark plug was refuted many years ago. The creationist simply replies:

"Written by a man who attended a low-ranked college. Has only worked at Christian Institutions. Done no research and published no papers that I can see evidence of and the sources are either irrelevant or over thirty years out of date.

What was this supposed to prove again?"

Really hypocrite? Really? Isn't that awesome how atheists and Bible-haters are such hypocrites? To a logical fallacy versed atheist, they would point out that your reply is that of a weasel. A person who ignored the evidence and fobs it off, and uses ad hominem attacks and mere mocking to avoid the issue.

Just look at this remark: "What was this supposed to prove again"

So, sarcasm is some powerful evidence, some scientific reply? "again"? A smug jab makes you rightierest eh?

Tell me how much education did the first scientist have, or how much education did the first person have, how many credentials, who did a scientific experiment? How NEW did his research need to be to be of value or still worth reading, or believable? So, using your stupid reasoning, your hypocrite's reasoning,  your damned if they do damned if they don't reasoning, I can just dismiss anything because, "that's so old." Reminds of childish replies teens make when someone brings up the Bible to them in a good light, "outdated" "that's just an old book".

And wow, lol, "a low-ranked college". You must be a 15 year old, probably with narcissism disorder to have said such an arrogant and immature thing. "Nanny nanny I go to Harvard you went to some Christian low ranked stuff, nanny nanny I won't listen I can't believe you no one should listen cuz ur poor and ur colleges didn't get high back pat approvals from my friend evolutionists. And only evolutionists (Bible-deniers) can be called objective and believed well, you Christians can't, nanny nanny low-ranked colleged."

What a face-punch deserving remark you've made, multiple face-punches. Study logical fallacies, that way you might avoid being such a massive idiot and flame-baiting troll. Here's a start: http://eternian.wordpress.com
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: jaimehlers on April 04, 2012, 02:02:55 AM
chosenbygrace:  Do you realize just how foolish your own response was?  The credentials of the person who wrote that article matter, especially since he was caught in what is at best a fairly ridiculous error about one of the studies he quoted, but what is much more probably a deliberate deception about it.  He didn't do his own research, he simply cited a couple of examples about other people's research, and not even particularly good ones given the one example I already cited.  So for all of your ranting about Alzael's response, he did have a good point, which went completely by your head.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: magicmiles on April 04, 2012, 02:09:18 AM
chosenbygrace: ease up tiger. These folk are capable of polite, rational discussions.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Alzael on April 04, 2012, 05:58:55 AM

Do you realize what a blatantly stupid reply that is? How deserving of a hard punch to your face that is?! Listen to yourself:


Do you realize that this does nothing at all to refute my point?

Really hypocrite? Really? Isn't that awesome how atheists and Bible-haters are such hypocrites?

Provide evidence that anything I said was hypocritical, if you please. It's very easy to make random claims.

To a logical fallacy versed atheist, they would point out that your reply is that of a weasel. A person who ignored the evidence and fobs it off, and uses ad hominem attacks and mere mocking to avoid the issue.

I did not use an ad hominem, however. Your previously quoted statement was an ad hominem, but not anything that I said. Although once again you free to actually demonstrate otherwise. Just to help you out, in order to prove an ad hominem you will have to demonstrate that the points I made have no relevance other than to serve as an attack on his character. I look forward to seeing how you argue that pointing out the man has done no scientific research and is using information outdated by over three decades has no relevance.

Just look at this remark: "What was this supposed to prove again"

So, sarcasm is some powerful evidence, some scientific reply? "again"? A smug jab makes you rightierest eh?

Evidence no, but a valid question. What was that evidence supposed to prove? It would not have been convincing to anyone who thought about it logically for more than a few seconds. I would also point out that this qualifies as another ad hominem on your part since you have yet to address anything I actually said with a counterargument.

Tell me how much education did the first scientist have, or how much education did the first person have, how many credentials, who did a scientific experiment?

Irrelevant. We're way past the first scientist. Obviously the first scientist had little education because he was the first. Just as obviously almost everything he said was most likely wrong. The writer of the article, however, does not have the excuse of not having any prior knowledge to go by. Brian Thomas has entire libraries and exobites upon exobites of information available to him. He just made a conscious choice to ignore it.

I trust you can at least comprehend the difference.

How NEW did his research need to be to be of value or still worth reading, or believable?

Also irrelevant, and for much the same reason. Brian Thomas deliberately chose to use information that had long been rendered outdated by new scientific studies and proven to be wrong.

So, using your stupid reasoning, your hypocrite's reasoning,

You still have not justified any sort of hypocrisy. Actually I'm not entirely certain that you actually know what that words means. What do you call "hypocrisy"?

  your damned if they do damned if they don't reasoning, I can just dismiss anything because, "that's so old." Reminds of childish replies teens make when someone brings up the Bible to them in a good light, "outdated" "that's just an old book".

No, you can dismiss it because it's been replaced with new information that is better supported. That is what a rational person does. When new information is provided they study it and, if properly evidenced, assimilate it. Clinging to old information that is proven wrong, but supports your preconceptions, is what fools, liars, and the incompetent do.

And wow, lol, "a low-ranked college". You must be a 15 year old, probably with narcissism disorder to have said such an arrogant and immature thing. "Nanny nanny I go to Harvard you went to some Christian low ranked stuff, nanny nanny I won't listen I can't believe you no one should listen cuz ur poor and ur colleges didn't get high back pat approvals from my friend evolutionists. And only evolutionists (Bible-deniers) can be called objective and believed well, you Christians can't, nanny nanny low-ranked colleged."

It goes directly to his credentials. There is a reason colleges like his are given low-ranks. Also this really has no bearing on anything. This entire paragraph is merely a sad attempt at a slight because you obviously lack the ability to form an actual argument to oppose what's been said.

What a face-punch deserving remark you've made, multiple face-punches. Study logical fallacies, that way you might avoid being such a massive idiot and flame-baiting troll. Here's a start: http://eternian.wordpress.com

I do know logical fallacies. Shall I count how many you've made so far?

You know, Chosen, I don't mind someone being insulting. But at least don't be boring. At least manage to form a single legitimate argument, as opposed to the collection of intellectual flotsam that you've chosen to post for your first time. If you can't even get through more than two sentences without resorting to an ad hominem then you're just going to get trounced by everyone here, who by all indications are clearly of a vastly superior intelligence in comparison to you. Which will not be very amusing to watch. So please, be insulting if you want, but at least be interesting.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: chosenbygrace on April 04, 2012, 07:08:03 AM
double post removed
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Dante on April 04, 2012, 07:23:49 AM
What an evil liar you are. Why are you so evil? God hater.

It must be the work of the Debil!!
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: jaimehlers on April 04, 2012, 07:33:12 AM
Oh and, 2009 and 2010 are out of date you liar? What an evil liar you are. Why are you so evil? God hater.
Given this is the only new thing you wrote (seriously, did you think other people wouldn't notice that you copy-pasted the rest from your previous reply?), I'll point out again that the study quoted was quoted incorrectly and probably deceptively.  It cites a groundbreaking study by Lenski which demonstrably proves a dramatic evolutionary change in E.coli bacteria, the ability to metabolize citrine, which is one of the key factors which differentiates E.coli from other bacteria.  Yet the article that qwan_lee linked claimed otherwise, that the E.coli bacterium was hobbled by mutations and had suffered only deleterious changes.  That is not just a mistake, that's a flat contradiction between what the study actually says and what the author of that article claims it does.  Therefore, the credentials of the author matter and Alzael has a valid point in bringing them up and questioning them.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Quesi on April 04, 2012, 07:49:32 AM
I wanted to take this opportunity to welcome chosenbygrace and quan lee to the forums. 

I look forward to learning all about how the earth became populated with so many different breeds and species in the few thousand years since all of the animals marched off Noah's Ark.  I'm also really interested in learning about how the human beings on earth became so racially diverse in the absence of the process of natural selection. 

I also hope to learn more about the world-wide conspiracy of scientists who have worked tirelessly to propagate falsehoods over so many generations. 

I'm also really excited to learn why God decided to modify joebbowers' bedbugs.  Actually, I'd like a little clarification about why God's perfect design includes bedbugs in the first place. 
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: chosenbygrace on April 04, 2012, 07:50:18 AM
Look you idiots, fruit flies are in baltic amber, dated 30 millions years old and older, and there is no apparent change. How many generations of fruit flies have passed by since 38 million years ago, yet you're whining about studies done since 1920 and onward showing no evolution? Truly stupid. "Living fossils" are always being found, but you dummies aren't interested in cataloging them all because it makes you look like the liars you are every time another is found.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Add Homonym on April 04, 2012, 07:50:45 AM
I can't actually read that link, so I'll substitute: http://www.icr.org/article/no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600/

You cannot actually spot evolution happening, or not, in a test tube environment.

I might have a new mutation that enables me to dive to 500m, but I will never know, until I do it. We simply don't have the technology to determine whether something is NOT evolving, if we don't test the organisms in every possible way, during the breeding. The power of bacterial evolution is NOT that they can multiply rapidly in a test tube, but that they can be exposed to a multitude of new environments if they are in the wild.

It's easy to see whether a mutant gene causes ill-effects, because the organism fails to thrive, or has toes missing. In the case of the bacteria: they were exposed to mutagens and chemicals designed to deform them. This was done without any attempts to identify any new niches that they may have been inadvertently adapting to. In this case, they were only adapting to potent mutagens, which was not possible in that time span. To adapt to a powerful, penetrating mutagen may require a new type of membrane - something that would take a million years to develop.

The fruit flies possibly cannot live any longer, no matter how much you push them. The experiment was likely done to give the researchers some ideas on how to extend human life, not to prove evolution. As such, they were only doing one test selection - that of lifespan. They proved that you cannot breed an older fruit-fly in 20 years. That does not mean that you cannot breed an older cat, or an older other type of fly. It also does not mean that the fruit flies never evolved a capacity for something else, and the researchers didn't notice. They were only looking for longevity. This put massive blinkers on the experiment.



Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Add Homonym on April 04, 2012, 07:53:12 AM
dated 30 millions years old and older,

Thanks for that date. We now know you are not a YEC.

Fruit flies may have very stable genetics, which made them inappropriate for the experiment. Just because you can't force one species in 20 years, does not mean you can't force them in 20,000 years, which is the time nature has available. Longer life is a large leap, and limits most species.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Zankuu on April 04, 2012, 07:53:52 AM
My dear fellow idiots, let's look at the bright side- chosenbygrace isn't a YEC.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Quesi on April 04, 2012, 08:03:32 AM
My dear fellow idiots, let's look at the bright side- chosenbygrace isn't a YEC.

And I think that he is here to demonstrate how having God in your life fills you with joy and love and good-will and charity. 

I hate to jump the gun here, but I'm guessing his warmth and grace will be contagious, and that most of us will be swept up in true belief by Easter morning. 
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Add Homonym on April 04, 2012, 08:06:26 AM
My dear fellow idiots, let's look at the bright side- chosenbygrace isn't a YEC.

I don't know how bright that is. At least with YECs, you can have a field-day, quoting all the drivel in Genesis at them.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: atheola on April 04, 2012, 08:12:42 AM
Quote
Look you idiots, fruit flies are in baltic amber, dated 30 millions years old and older,
Huh? But didn't sky daddy create the earth a mere 6000 years ago?
THIRTY MILLION YEARS vs a mere 6000..

Well...there seems to be an accounting error somewhere.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: One Above All on April 04, 2012, 08:17:00 AM
*Devil's advocate mode on*
Actually, when you consider that the gods' plans hinge on people dying in order to go to the good place, intelligent design makes a lot of sense. We're intelligently designed to die by the tens of thousands, sometimes before we're even born.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Historicity on April 04, 2012, 08:31:51 AM
It's been how long now since Darwin presented his ripped off twisted version of Blyth's theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth)
Quote
There can be no doubt of Darwin's regard for Edward Blyth: in the first chapter of On the Origin of Species he wrote "Mr. Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one, ..."
...
In this negative formulation, natural selection only preserves a constant and unchangeable type or essence of created form, by eliminating extreme variations or unfit individuals that deviate too far from this essence. The formulation goes back to the ancient Greek philosopher Empedocles,
...
Stephen Jay Gould writes that ... natural selection was a common idea among biologists of the time, as part of the argument for created permanency of species.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Historicity on April 04, 2012, 08:35:23 AM
http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/no-fruit-fly-evolution-after-600-generations-or-bacteria-evolution-after-40000-generations/

BROKEN LINK
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: screwtape on April 04, 2012, 08:36:17 AM
Hi chosenbygrace

Welcome to our forum.

My green text indicates I am responding as a moderator, not a participant in the discussion or debate.

Please refrain from posting the same thing twice.  Your post was addressed by Alzael and there was no need to repeat yourself.

You are new so if you have not done so already, please read our Rules (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21732.0.html) and the Guides (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21732.0.html)

If you have any questions, please PM a staff member.

Also, this:


Look you idiots, ...Truly stupid....  but you dummies aren't interested ...because it makes you look like the liars you are

is not going to make you friends, change anyone's mind or have a positive influence on anyone's life, including yours.  I suggest you try a different approach.

Regards
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: screwtape on April 04, 2012, 08:57:49 AM
http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/no-fruit-fly-evolution-after-600-generations-or-bacteria-evolution-after-40000-generations/

BROKEN LINK

The rest of the site belongs to someone who is almost certainly mentally ill.  On his "about me" page:
Quote
I’m a Christian, I like to go exploring, would like to have my own farm, would like to go to Israel and plant some trees in the desert there. I’m into reading and watching shows and movies about these things: astronomy, archeology, logic, the bible, mineral hunting, farming, history, haunted houses, UFOs, alien abductions, crop circles, megaliths, pyramids, bigfoot, unexplained disappearances and cryptozoology. I know a decent amount about psychology, narcissism, psychopath, sociopathy.
...
I’ve saved a few lives over the recent years, physically (unfortunately all the people whom I saved in person, are severely hateful, backstabbing, unthankful, mentally unstable drunks) and have lead over 100 people, mostly teens, to Christ from 1998-2004. From about 2007-2009 I also lead many people to Christ and helped many to refrain from committing suicide right away, though combined, this amount does not seem to have come close to my earlier success. I had less success during the second period because of various cyberstalkers, especially atheist ones, especially a certain four atheists. Among the non-atheists were Arminian and “saved by works” type Christians, who are prone to mental illness and still in their sins.
...
However, the harassers I mentioned, especially the atheists and insane woman, hindrance from my parents, harassment from the police, harassment from false and fellow Christians (and abandonment by both) a hoard of bad neighbors, health problems, and many hardware and software failures, have delayed it greatly, since 2004.


How many personality disorders can you spot?

Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: velkyn on April 04, 2012, 09:05:19 AM
nice. quan_lee, a new liar for christ.    Here's the real science, not some pathetic attempts to lie with the usual creationist tricks of willful ignorance, using superseded information, outright lies, etc: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7167/full/nature06341.html 
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/296/6/R1847.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12949132

EDIT: oh and two for the price of one.  ah the ever so "humble" screen name "chosenbygrace" by a "good Christian" who is sure all of those other Christians are "wrong".  And another liar for Christ who is utterly ignorant about the evolutionary theory he tries so hard to attack.     
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: atheola on April 04, 2012, 09:08:27 AM
I'm not the smartest penny in the bank or I'd be rich instead of so good looking, but please explain why a Saint Bernard and a chihuahua can have puppies together.  &)
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Azdgari on April 04, 2012, 09:11:37 AM
Artificial insemination.  Just make sure the St. Bernard is the one being impregnated, or that'll be one very unfortunate chihuahua.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: naemhni on April 04, 2012, 09:15:40 AM
How many personality disorders can you spot?

Paranoid Personality Disorder for sure.  Narcissistic Personality Disorder is also a good possibility.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: ParkingPlaces on April 04, 2012, 09:19:51 AM
chosenbygrace

Fruit flies? Which species found in amber hasn't changed a whit? Where is that specific species found today? Can you show us the specifics of the non-changes? Or do you just like the term fruit fly because it automatically indicates that nothing else has changed because, by golly, it has the same common name.

Lets see, there are over 3,000 species of them. There is still lots of fruit for them to eat. Therefore there is little pressure for them to evolve into giant flying squid eating monsters with a 20 foot wing span.

The island of Hawaii, which rose out of the sea only 8 million years ago, has 500 distinct species of fruit fly found nowhere else in the world. It is less than 30 million years old. This seems to indicate some movement on the part of genes, etc.

So I need to clarify your argument in case I have something wrong. You have a 30 million year old specimen of a fruit fly trapped in amber, which you say has never changed so evolution is false, and even though 8 million years ago the islands of Hawaii rose up out of the ocean, and 500 unique species of fruit fly exist on those islands, neither those fruit flies nor of any of the other 2500 species of fruit fly actually evolved because they are all called fruit flies, and besides, if had evolved that would be inconvenient for your argument so lets just say they didn't evolve and all turn into christians because evolution is false. Is that about right?

Successful species don't need to evolve into other critters. It's not a requirement of life to continually evolve that way. It is a requirement to have a nice little sustainable ecological niche and succeed in procreating. Even the latter requirement evolved. Those that didn't procreate, er, didn't evolve.

The fruit flies (that's singular to you) of the world fill a nice little niche that existed 30 million years ago and exists today. It gets to eat it's little heart out when there is fruit around. There is a lot of food around. Fruit flies have evolved into other species of fruit flies in order to take advantage of new food opportunities where some sort of evolved advantage makes eating that type of fruit easier or safer. Other fruit flies have stayed more or less the same because the old fruits are still there and need to be nibbled on.

I do apologize for giving you this data. It was an accident. I didn't mean to inform you. In the future, if you are going to use fruit flies as an example of proof that evolution hasn't happened, you should only go to uninformed sites that have the same need to diss information that you find inconvenient. Assuming that it is important for you to know nothing, I would suggest you stick with such sites. (don't worry, there are lots of them. There is a crayon-based version of google that can help you find more.) That way nothing troublesome will come to mind, knowledge-wise, and you can live happily and blithely uninformed for as long as you want. Enjoy.


Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: jaimehlers on April 04, 2012, 09:35:57 AM
And talk about dishonest: so you don't think that by now some evolutionist God haters like yourself, if seeing fruit flies finally evolve after what now would be much more than 600 generations, would say, "OH LOOK THE CREATIONISTS ARE WRONG DARWIN IS RIGHT SEE THEY'VE FINALLY EVOLVED!" Every second that passes with no demonstration of evolution or claim IS CURRENT INFORMATION. You saying, "Oh but an evolutionist has to do a new study in this unspecified time I won't give and then it will be okay and then I'll believe." Talk about dishonest.

It's been how long now since Darwin presented his ripped off twisted version of Blyth's theory and still no evidence of evolution and you're still resisting the truth guys? You're really that full of stubborn bitterness? You're really that prideful? All you want then is endless arguments, that's your way of punishing God is to try and wear out those who speak the truth in his name. In the end, you will be forever worn out, always desiring sleep and never getting any.

And wow, did you not hear about the millions of years old rocks that were used as standards for all other dating methods being admitted to be only 700,000 years old? *Shakes head*. Evil, dumb, greedy, liars. Get real jobs and stop taking grant money bribes.
Given that you edited your post, I'll respond to the specific edits, but really, there's no reason for you to have copy-pasted your original response to Alzael, nor to selectively modify his post either.

First off, if you take nothing else away from this conversation, understand that atheists are not "God haters".  Atheists, as a rule, do not believe in gods of any sort, and it is irrational to hate something that you don't believe exists.  I think you would find that if atheists as a rule hate anything, they hate the way in which Christian believers and other theists presume that their religious beliefs are correct despite being completely unable to find out for sure until it's too late to do anything about it.

----

Now, regarding the fruit fly study, I've since located an ABC news report of a breakthrough made at the University of Connecticut which showed that making a change to a single gene resulted in a dramatic increase in the life span of a fruit fly[1].  According to an abstract in Science News[2] from 2000, this not only doubled the average lifespan of the fruit fly from 37 days to 70, but it increased their maximum life span by 50%.  Again, this completely contradicts the conclusion in the article linked by qwan_lee (which I noticed was no longer available on that blog (the original is available here (http://www.icr.org/article/no-fruit-fly-evolution-even-after-600/) on ICR), namely that "the experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes?mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature?merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies.".  So we have another contradiction between the conclusions of the article's writer and the actual science involved.

I would say that both the gene changed that so dramatically increased the lifespan of fruit flies and the mutation which resulted in E.coli being able to metabolize citrine demonstrate that it is indeed possible to get beneficial changes from genetic changes.  Given that this is a key part of the theory of evolution, I would say that these studies stand as evidence that Christian creationist beliefs are flawed in conception and that evolution by selection is a fact of life.

----

Regarding the rest of your post, it seems that you're attributing your own bile and bitterness against atheists and "evolutionists" to them, the well-known phenomenon of "projection".  Let me clue you in on something, I get more "exhausted" from eight hours a day of working with computers for a living than in refuting the bad arguments posited by creationists.  I don't do it to "punish" some deity (I don't think sad deity would even notice, it would be like an ant "punishing" me by arguing against other ants), I do it because those creationists are wrong, and it's my duty to show it.

And as for those rocks you mentioned that only ended up being 700,000 years old, you trumpet this as if it disproves the whole concept of radiometric dating.  It does not.  What that really means is that someone made a mistake, and then caught it and corrected it after the fact.  That is what science is about, finding errors in our understanding of things and correcting them.  That's one of the reasons we use different methods of radiometric dating, because it provides us a cross-check in case someone screws up.
 1. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119719&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119719&page=1)
 2. http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/2000/158-25/15825-18.pdf (http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/2000/158-25/15825-18.pdf)
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Dante on April 04, 2012, 09:49:04 AM
Hey chosen, or quan, care to answer this question? Your other theist friends apparently declined.

What is it about evolution that makes you afraid? Why do you accept other scientific facts, but not this one?

For years, people have had to move on from one outdated world view to the more current, corrected one. The planet is not flat. Thor does not make thunder. Other worlds do exist.

Science is a tool for understanding the world around us. It does not care about your beliefs, nor mine. It is non-sentient, with no agenda, save to answer questions about how things work. And, one of the beauties of it is that it requires no faith to work. It works whether you believe it, or not. If you choose to dismiss all the evidence and rationale for any science, it doesn't care. It still works.

Are you such a narcissist that you believe science has the hidden agenda to disprove your god? To make your god irrelevant? I tell you, it does not. And why would it? To what end?

Why would science be out to disprove your god? What happens? According to you, we're in a "fallen state" anyway. Why would this make it worse? And, moreover, why would you, personally, care? Wouldn't all this have the effect of speeding toward the rapture anyway? And, isn't that a good thing for you?

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: atheola on April 04, 2012, 09:53:18 AM
Goodness! We're all god haters now.. I don't hate things that don't exist, but there is that special deity who left money under my pillow at night. All hail the Tooth Fairytm!

Quote
Artificial insemination. Just make sure the St. Bernard is the one being impregnated, or that'll be one very unfortunate chihuahua.
Indeed..poor mother chihuahua.
When I was a kid we had a large German Shepherd and when she went into heat the little ankle biter next door was usually first in line to hump her leg which became a regular comedy show for the neighborhood.. :D
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Alzael on April 04, 2012, 10:21:57 AM
Look you idiots, fruit flies are in baltic amber, dated 30 millions years old and older, and there is no apparent change. How many generations of fruit flies have passed by since 38 million years ago, yet you're whining about studies done since 1920 and onward showing no evolution? Truly stupid. "Living fossils" are always being found, but you dummies aren't interested in cataloging them all because it makes you look like the liars you are every time another is found.

Ad hominems combined with wild accusations. However I note the distinct lack of any sort of evidence to support yourself, not to mention the lack of any reasonable thought processes. Even your insane rambling is dull and vacant.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Historicity on April 04, 2012, 11:33:15 AM
Quote
... I like to go exploring, would like to have my own farm, would like to go to Israel and plant some trees in the desert there. I’m into reading and watching shows and movies about these things: astronomy, archeology, logic, the bible, mineral hunting, farming, history, haunted houses, UFOs, alien abductions, crop circles, megaliths, pyramids, bigfoot, unexplained disappearances and cryptozoology. I know a decent amount about psychology, narcissism, psychopath, sociopathy.

Actually he sounds a bit like me. 

And he looks a lot like me only decades younger.

SOMEONE CLONED ME WITHOUT MY KNOWING IT.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: atheola on April 04, 2012, 12:40:08 PM
Don't fret Historocity.
I look just like Abraham Lincoln from the side and I haven't freed any slaves although my grandkids would argue I'm a slave driver come room cleaning day..
Did they secretly clone Lincoln in the 50s?
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: ungod on April 04, 2012, 01:59:16 PM
please explain why a Saint Bernard and a chihuahua can have puppies together.  &)

Becuz they're the same species? DUH!

Quote
I'm not the smartest penny in the bank or I'd be rich instead of so good looking

You don't need to be smart to be rich - just really greedy and a sociopath.

Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Omen on April 05, 2012, 11:16:17 AM
http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/no-fruit-fly-evolution-after-600-generations-or-bacteria-evolution-after-40000-generations/

"Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long ___multigenerational__(there goes the "time" theory) studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don’t evolve—they just die."

This article is atrociously bad, it quotes none of the findings and instead the author of the article quotes himself dismissively summarizing the report without actually citing anything in the report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media.[2]

They even narrowed down the genetic stages of development to within 20,000 generations.  Meaning that earlier changes were also necessary for the ability for the E coli to evolve the functionality to grow on citric acid.  Generations before the 20,000 point lack the genetic changes to develop the ability to grow on citric acid in the future.

In 2008 Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in one of the twelve populations: the bacteria evolved the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy. Wild type E. coli cannot transport citrate across the cell membrane to the cell interior (where it could be incorporated into the citric acid cycle) when oxygen is present. The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella. Around generation 33,127, the experimenters noticed a dramatically expanded population-size in one of the samples; they found that there were clones in this population that could grow on the citrate included in the growth medium to permit iron acquisition. Examination of samples of the population frozen at earlier time points led to the discovery that a citrate-using variant had evolved in the population at some point between generations 31,000 and 31,500. They used a number of genetic markers unique to this population to exclude the possibility that the citrate-using E. coli were contaminants. They also found that the ability to use citrate could spontaneously re-evolve in populations of genetically pure clones isolated from earlier time points in the population's history. Such re-evolution of citrate utilization was never observed in clones isolated from before generation 20,000. Even in those clones that were able to re-evolve citrate utilization, the function showed a rate of occurrence on the order of once per trillion cells. The authors interpret these results as indicating that the evolution of citrate utilization in this one population depended on an earlier, perhaps non-adaptive "potentiating" mutation that had the effect of increasing the rate of mutation to citrate utilization to an accessible level (with the data they present further suggesting that citrate utilization required at least two mutations subsequent to this "potentiating" mutation). More generally the authors suggest that these results indicate (following the argument of Stephen Jay Gould) "that historical contingency can have a profound and lasting impact" on the course of evolution.[2]
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: Tero on April 20, 2012, 09:13:32 PM
We all are waiting for the intermediate species to show up ANYWHERE! 7 BILLION people on earth and WHERE oh
WHERE are the intermediate human-like species?


Here we are. We are an intermediate. Or we may be the end of the road.  Our humanlike ancestors are dead. There are lots of bones out there. SInce the time span is quite large, we do not have a whole lot from the last 500 000 years. But certainly we have lots.
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: jeremy0 on April 20, 2012, 09:27:49 PM
We all are waiting for the intermediate species to show up ANYWHERE! 7 BILLION people on earth and WHERE oh
WHERE are the intermediate human-like species?


Here we are. We are an intermediate. Or we may be the end of the road.  Our humanlike ancestors are dead. There are lots of bones out there. SInce the time span is quite large, we do not have a whole lot from the last 500 000 years. But certainly we have lots.

It seems I'm late to the party..  I would argue against the teaching of anything in any school that has not been proven or verified.  For example, I haven't proven to the outside world that I have a single-read index structure for numerical searches and a vastly two-read index for strings (text).  I have proof of this on my computer, with working and thoroughly tested code.  However, it won't make any algorithm book based on disk-based searching, because I have not finished it and proven it to the outside world.  That means it shouldn't be taught until it becomes validated by some higher authority.

Also, I have an idea that using one key out of an asymmetrical encryption algorithm and encrypting a password with that key, while never storing the other key to decrypt it anywhere, and then doing an md5 or sha1 to store it, might be better than just a straight md5 or an md5 with salt (random letters appended/prepended).  However, this is a theory, that has not been contested or argued.  Therefore, it may be invalid, and should not be taught to computer programmers yet. 

The same is true for teaching intelligent design in school.  Until it has been validated, it is only a loosely-knit theory, one that has not been studied, and is constantly challenged.  Because it cannot be verified or validated, it has no place being taught in any school at this time.

(how did we get so side-tracked on this discussion?)
Title: Re: Why Intelignt Design Isn't Intelligent
Post by: MadBunny on April 21, 2012, 12:40:49 PM

The same is true for teaching intelligent design in school.  Until it has been validated, it is only a loosely-knit theory, one that has not been studied, and is constantly challenged. Because it cannot be verified or validated, it has no place being taught in any school at this time.

Hence lies the problem.  ID isn't science, it isn't even a theory.  At best it's an unproven hypothesis.