intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 383 Responses
- discipler0
No, bot. That's just the kind of nonsense that so many believe and need to be educated about. We have absolutely no record of how the first cell formed! It's nonsense to say we do. Your description fails... here's why:
We know now that cells are impossibly complex powerhouses of machinery containing information transport systems, error protection mechanisms, transport shuttles, etc... Now here's the kicker that demonstrates why they didn't just "form - irreducibility. What this means is, if you remove any one miniscule component, the entire cell fails. This means that it requires all of it's constituent parts at the same time to function or else it's useless. Darwinian gradualism would not build this because: A) The mechanism has no way of generating the intelligence to produce such complex systems and B) Natural Selection would prevent the components from coming together because it would destroy those components it didn't need.
- discipler0
heh, you miss the joke, dobs. They combat the spaghetti monster in jest to demonstrate how foolish the notion is and it's logical fallacies. It demonstrates how little the critics of I.D. know about the science. :)
bot - what should worry you is that civil war era science (philosophical naturalism masquerading as science) is still being taught to our kids as though it were fact! What should be taught to our kids is the latest scientific discovery and the gaping holes in darwinian naturalism should be exposed for them.
- ********0
discipler , you are wrong. You can remove a number of compents of a cell and it will still function. Just becuse its complicated doesn't mean it can't happen by chance. Its not that big a deal that in an infinate univers something odd like life will happen, hey we even have people like you.
- ********0
Discipler: I am the spaghetti monster and I cast you to washing up hell!
- mrdobolina0
Though publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.
- discipler0
bot, what you have just said is categorically false. So false that i laughed out loud. I mean, wow!
Here, learn about irreducible complexity:
http://www.ideacenter.org/conten…
http://www.arn.org/mm/mb_ic.htm
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
- discipler0
false, mrdobs. and you dodge the issue like the critics, because they know they can't combat the science. So... they try to make it into a religious or political conspiracy.
That aside, I personally make no quams about anything it takes to get materialistic/naturalistic philosophy masquerading as science to loosen it's grip on our culture. Might be interesting to see how society reacts to finding out that they were intelligently designed, rather than purposeless combinations of chemicals.
- mrdobolina0
who do you believe is the intelligent designer, discipler?
be honest now...
- mrdobolina0
The National Academy of Sciences has said that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.
- IRNlun60
discipler, I feel you do have extremely convincing arguments that the darwinian theory of evolution has gaps and should not be taught as fact but theory. The scientific community isn't to blame when it comes to how it's represented but on teachers and their lesson plans.
- IRNlun60
...hence the term "theory" of evolution.
- durang0
discipler. great first post, you know your shit. at this point science has really proved nothing. it's important to stay open minded.
- ribit0
I dont think you need big jumps to 'novel species'. Species evolve through 'lots of little steps'...
I don't agree with the idea that 'minor' evolutionary change is 'losing information'...Its just a different animal, and possibly one better suited to its environment. How do you define 'information loss' anyway?
- mrdobolina0
What about this discipler?
- pavlovs_dog0
hey dobs, link me to the menu of that new bristo that moveed into pat's crack bar...
- kyl30
dog is my co pilot
- ********0
this thread is better than the matrix trilogy.
Bluejam
(Sep 30 05, 08:32)
-----------------Well at least the last two movies for sure...
- liquid0
wow.... so predictable...
- discipler0
heh dobs, you can copy and paste stuff from wherever you want. Trust me, you'll find plenty of places to support whatever belief you want to posit. The Miller experiment is the butt of jokes in the scientific community these days. A.) He used the wrong atmosphere. B.) He contaminated the process because he was an "intelligent" entity. C.) His end result was brown sludge. D.) Experiments like these only pushes the issue of origins back a step.
More:
http://www.ideacenter.org/conten…
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm…
- liquid0
really predictable..