|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 3, 2005 11:58:13 GMT -4
If you have followed discussions about Intelligent Design, you might recognizes the thread title.
I am posting two links to sites that might be interesting:
+http://www.talkdesign.org/
+http://www.creationtheory.org/
(get rid of the plus sign in front of them).
To fuel the discussion:
What is intelligent in designing water-dwelling creatures that can drown? If they were designed, the designer must be a sadistic psychopath.
(If this post is unsuitable for the board, feel free to delete it. I just felt sorry for this empty forum.)
|
|
|
|
Post by snakeriverrufus on Jun 4, 2005 15:26:30 GMT -4
I don't know who said this first but it's true,,
Intelligent design isn't
|
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 6, 2005 7:29:53 GMT -4
I don't know who said this first but it's true,, Intelligent design isn't isn't what? A scientific theory? |
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on Jun 6, 2005 17:09:53 GMT -4
What it means is intelligent design isn't intelligent design. That is the postulation that ID exists isn't supported by the crappy creatures it created - filled as we are with defects.
|
|
|
|
Post by snakeriverrufus on Jun 6, 2005 17:43:19 GMT -4
I'ts neither intellengent nor designed
|
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jun 12, 2005 3:38:24 GMT -4
Do intelligent people still subscribe to the random chance theory?  |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 12, 2005 9:11:27 GMT -4
Do intelligent people still subscribe to the random chance theory? Intelligent people who understand how little of it actually is "random" certainly do. |
|
|
|
Post by snakeriverrufus on Jun 12, 2005 22:44:50 GMT -4
Do intelligent people still subscribe to the random chance theory? Natural selection is a far cry from random chance  |
|
|
|
Post by gethen on Jun 30, 2005 9:40:12 GMT -4
This week's Time magazine has a nice little cartoon about ID, also making the point that Intelligent Design does not seem to explain male pattern baldness.
Is the line about the clown suit the same as the one I heard about the tuxedo?
|
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 30, 2005 11:07:33 GMT -4
Is the line about the clown suit the same as the one I heard about the tuxedo? I have no idea. I read the clow suit line somewhere, and I found it appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by gethen on Jun 30, 2005 11:14:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 5, 2005 22:47:58 GMT -4
If Intelligent Design proponents were intellectually honest, they'd own up to the Christian basis of their belief. This, of course, would make it unacceptable to people who follow other religions.
Instead, they follow the most intellectually threadbare path, of criticising evolution and expecting to take evolution's place by default, ignoring the various other competing theories. It's the sort of fallacy Moon Hoax proponents make all the time: if I show there are problems with the Apollo record, my conspiracy theory must instead be the correct explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Jul 16, 2005 1:47:08 GMT -4
Do intelligent people still subscribe to the random chance theory? Natural selection is a far cry from random chance What about those probability figures given for life to arise in the first place? What about Hoyles Jumbo Jet But I forget, the answer to that is giving enormous expanses of time to get around the low probabilities that were given for life to arrive and for genetic mutation to achive the diversity we have today. |
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jul 16, 2005 8:50:15 GMT -4
Natural selection is a far cry from random chance What about those probability figures given for life to arise in the first place? Chemistry is not random chance. |
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 17, 2005 22:02:59 GMT -4
Sticks
Those investigating the emergence of life on Earth do not require the equivalent of a Jumbo Jet to be assembled by a tornado. That analogy is misleading and Fred Hoyle was wrong to use it. (In any case, he was championing his own theory of panspermia - the Earth being seeded with life from space).
A more appropriate way to think of it is to consider just how many atoms of the elements involved in life there would be on Earth, and the number of interactions available to them in a given period of time.
Are you familiar with Avogadro's Number? It's about 6.023 x 10^23, and it's the number of atoms (or molecules) in one mole. One mole is a weight in grams equal to the atomic mass of the atom or molecule. So one mole of hydrogen weighs 1 gram, while one mole of carbon dioxide weighs about 44 grams. Therefore, there is a *lot* of material to work with here.
Also, the development of life doesn't require complete cells to emerge out of nothing. Instead, increasingly complex amino acids are easily assembled (and occur in space too). All that's required is for these amino acids to combine in steadily more complex forms.
|
|
