Intelligent Design

[Bitchkoma]

Holy shit. I had no idea it was that twisted. How can any rational person claim that this isn't a religious idea?

[JiveTurkey]

You can have "intelligent design" without religious over or undertones.




:)



Jasn

[Yo Mama]

Have you seen the The Wedge Document? (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf)

This is the insanity that is trying to take over the world using the US government.

Is it any wonder that I am, shall we say, contemptuous of people who believe this crap?

[Iori Komei]

Well regardless of what its proponents say about it, legally it is considered religion in the U.S.

[Bitchkoma]

So there are those who said it is a science. I posed the following questions on a thread at the other site:




Okay, so if ID is a science, what are the predictions that it makes? Where are the lab reports?

Again, serious question. They don't teach any of this where I'm from.

What I got in response was totally unrelated to the question. The poster talked about the great biblical flood.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8107/startrekwtfpd5anonibvw7.jpg

Epic fail. Contradicting what the other poster said it not being religious. Even bigger failure because while the links they posted (concerning the flood) were from a creationist website, I had already posted links about a great flood from the New York Times and Discover magazine on pare one of the thread.

Idiots.

[Yo Mama]

That's the point of the Wedge. They're trying to make it "real science" by coming up with research papers and whatnot.

As you said, BK, so far, it's an epic fail. Except in their own opinions.

For instance, one of the major "brains" behind ID, Michael Behe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe), is a biochemist. Biochemists are traditionally the least religious of scientists -- learning about evolutionary biology tends to have that effect. But Behe insists ID is real science, so much so that Lehigh University, where he teaches, has the following disclaimer on its website:


While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific

Check out this site: ISCID. (http://www.iscid.org/) It is a prime example of a minority of religious scientists acting as if their religion was really science -- check out the fellows page and see how many Discovery Institute IDiots are on board.

They are bound and determined to "prove" creationism is scientific, even while the rest of us laugh our collective asses off.

[Bitchkoma]

That's the point of the Wedge. They're trying to make it "real science" by coming up with research papers and whatnot.

Thing is those dogmatic supporters haven't even given me a single scientific paper, hypothesis or anything like that. The epic fail is because instead they gave me something completely unrelated to my question. Which I have already addressed before any of them on the very first page. (thread is already 18 pages long when I first asked my question). Utter complete failure to comprehend or even follow the flow of conversation. Remember my rant about reading and not comprehending?

It's like me asking you whether you like chocolate or vanilla, and then you answer me baseball is great. What the fuck?

It's now past 4 pages since I first asked those question. I've repeated it again a page later. Still no answers. Instead there's just stupid bickering. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with these people?

Edit: here (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread338644/pg18#pid4075525) have a look yourself. It seems I made a mistake. I asked the question at page 17. Repeat at 18. Repeat again at 19. Stupid answer was at page 18.

[mojo]

Instead there's just stupid bickering. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with these people?



Its 90% of the threads over there now BK. From last year when i was probably posting 20 -30 times a day i'm now posting maybe 3 - 4 times a week.
Even when you do find a worthwhile thread to post on it soon descends into petty bickering and answers to questions that weren't even asked followed by someone claiming to be the arch angel gabriel.

[Yo Mama]

They aren't answering your question, BK, because the cognitive dissonance created by your asking it won't allow it.

If someone thought about and answered your question, their paradigm might shift. Can't have that happen, can we?

Edit to add: Gah! I'm never clicking a link to ATS again. The level of ignorant delusion makes my stomach hurt. I can't believe Clearskies trotted out that evidence of suffocation of animals in the flood bullshit again!

ROFLcopters! Yeah! The animals magically sorted themselves out into strata to make the fossils. They DID all live at the same time, it's just that some sunk further than others. :roll:

[JiveTurkey]

Intelligent design CAN be a science. However, one must drop "god" from the equation before it can be looked at from any scientific standpoint.


If, like me, you believe that we were "designed" and "seeded" here on Earth by an alien race, you can look at ID from a scientific standpoint.


God, as always, is the flaw.



Jasn

[mojo]

If, like me, you believe that we were "designed" and "seeded" here on Earth by an alien race, you can look at ID from a scientific standpoint.


God, as always, is the flaw.



Jasn

I,m not totally opposed to the "seeded" theory's, in fact i think there's a very good chance the "original soup" that life began in was formed from "debris" from space.
I'm not so keen on the "seeded" theory that has us designed and placed here by intelligent beings however, there is just too much evidence of our hominid evolution.

[Bitchkoma]

Intelligent design CAN be a science. However, one must drop "god" from the equation before it can be looked at from any scientific standpoint.

That's fine and all, but I've yet to read a single lab report produced by the ID camp.

For the sake of discussion I'll repost what I posted there over here:


Originally posted by Beachcoma
Okay, so if ID is a science, what are the predictions that it makes? Where are the lab reports?

Lab reports. That's what I want. That and scientific predictions that ID has to offer. Not pseudo-scientific articles cobbled together from a smattering of other scientific articles which have been cherry-picked (or selectively quoted) to support the thesis. Not opinion-based refutations of existing scientific knowledge. If it must be a refutation, then let it be a refutation based on an experiment that can be replicated by others. In other words, proper science.

And no deflection talking about something unrelated.

In case people are clueless as to what a lab report is, here is a good primer: Handbook: Laboratory Reports (http://www.ecf.toronto.edu/~writing/handbook-lab.html)

Example of a lab report (nothing to do with biology, but just to give you all an idea): http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/jo ... lim.04.pdf (http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Minnis.etal.JClim.04.pdf)

Mojo, what you're talking about is panspermia.

From Panspermia to Bioastronomy, the Evolution of the Hypothesis of Universal Life (http://www.springerlink.com/content/m1t14rtr7372tp22/)
During the 19th and early 20th centuries, ideas related to the possible origin in space of bioorganic molecules, or seeds, or even germs and organisms (and how they reached the Earth) included the Panspermia theory. Based on the idea of the eternity of life proposed by eminent physicists - such as Arrhenius and Kelvin - 'Panspermia' is mainly divided into two branches: lithopanspermia (transport of germs inside stones traveling in space) and radiopanspermia (transport of spores by radiative pressure of stellar light). We point out some arguments to help to understand whether 'Panspermia' could exist nowadays as the same theory defined one century ago. And we wonder about the kind of evolution 'Panspermia' could have undergone during only a few decades. This possible evolution of the 'Panspermia' concept takes place in the framework of the emergence of a new field, Bioastronomy. We present how this discipline has emerged during a few decades and how it has evolved. We consider its relationship with the progression of other scientific fields, and finally we examine how it is now included in different projects of space agencies. Bioastronomy researches having become more and more robust during the last few years, we emphasize several questions about new ideas and their consequences for the current hypothesis of 'Panspermia' and of universal life.

[JiveTurkey]

If, like me, you believe that we were "designed" and "seeded" here on Earth by an alien race, you can look at ID from a scientific standpoint.


God, as always, is the flaw.



Jasn

I,m not totally opposed to the "seeded" theory's, in fact i think there's a very good chance the "original soup" that life began in was formed from "debris" from space.
I'm not so keen on the "seeded" theory that has us designed and placed here by intelligent beings however, there is just too much evidence of our hominid evolution.



I don't believe we were placed here as we are today.

I'm a firm believer of the "evolution of the species".



:)

[mojo]

Mojo, what you're talking about is panspermia.

From Panspermia to Bioastronomy, the Evolution of the Hypothesis of Universal Life (http://www.springerlink.com/content/m1t14rtr7372tp22/)
During the 19th and early 20th centuries, ideas related to the possible origin in space of bioorganic molecules, or seeds, or even germs and organisms (and how they reached the Earth) included the Panspermia theory. Based on the idea of the eternity of life proposed by eminent physicists - such as Arrhenius and Kelvin - 'Panspermia' is mainly divided into two branches: lithopanspermia (transport of germs inside stones traveling in space) and radiopanspermia (transport of spores by radiative pressure of stellar light). We point out some arguments to help to understand whether 'Panspermia' could exist nowadays as the same theory defined one century ago. And we wonder about the kind of evolution 'Panspermia' could have undergone during only a few decades. This possible evolution of the 'Panspermia' concept takes place in the framework of the emergence of a new field, Bioastronomy. We present how this discipline has emerged during a few decades and how it has evolved. We consider its relationship with the progression of other scientific fields, and finally we examine how it is now included in different projects of space agencies. Bioastronomy researches having become more and more robust during the last few years, we emphasize several questions about new ideas and their consequences for the current hypothesis of 'Panspermia' and of universal life.

Yup my theory is very similar to the Panspermia and the Gaia theory.
See my "Bugs or Brain Cells" thread for the whole lowdown on the mojo philosophy. :lol:

[Bitchkoma]

See my "Bugs or Brain Cells" thread for the whole lowdown on the mojo philosophy. :lol:

Very Nietzsche. Have you read Thus Spake Zarathustra (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/spzar10.txt)?

[mojo]

See my "Bugs or Brain Cells" thread for the whole lowdown on the mojo philosophy. :lol:

Very Nietzsche. Have you read Thus Spake Zarathustra (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/spzar10.txt)?

No, but i will now thanks for the link. :)

[Bitchkoma]

I don't buy or follow everything he writes. But I like this part of that book though:



Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just. Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the believers in the orthodox belief.

Behold the good and just! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker:--he, however, is the creator.

Behold the believers of all beliefs! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the law-breaker--he, however, is the creator.

Companions, the creator seeketh, not corpses--and not herds or believers either. Fellow-creators the creator seeketh--those who grave new values on new tables.

Companions, the creator seeketh, and fellow-reapers: for everything is ripe for the harvest with him. But he lacketh the hundred sickles: so he plucketh the ears of corn and is vexed.

Companions, the creator seeketh, and such as know how to whet their sickles. Destroyers, will they be called, and despisers of good and evil. But they are the reapers and rejoicers.

[JiveTurkey]

I don't buy or follow everything he writes. But I like this part of that book though:



Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just. Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the believers in the orthodox belief.

Behold the good and just! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker:--he, however, is the creator.

Behold the believers of all beliefs! Whom do they hate most? Him who breaketh up their tables of values, the breaker, the law-breaker--he, however, is the creator.

Companions, the creator seeketh, not corpses--and not herds or believers either. Fellow-creators the creator seeketh--those who grave new values on new tables.

Companions, the creator seeketh, and fellow-reapers: for everything is ripe for the harvest with him. But he lacketh the hundred sickles: so he plucketh the ears of corn and is vexed.

Companions, the creator seeketh, and such as know how to whet their sickles. Destroyers, will they be called, and despisers of good and evil. But they are the reapers and rejoicers.



Much of what he wrote was utter garbage.


However, there were many gems interlaced with his self worship.


Nietscheze's books can be quite hard to follow at times. TSZ is one of the better ones.