Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

If Intelligent design is a scientific theory, how come it is never published in a peer reviewed article? How come there aren't any experiments to see if it's true? With evolution at least, we can test the hypothesis? Can you devise an experiment that tests the ID hypothesis? Thought experiments don't count, it has to be scientific lab work, like this one: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

Why hasn't it been published in a peer-reviewed article? Because people won't let it be published! Tell you what, go get yourself a scientific career. Then try to publish a paper that even mentions ID. See how long you last.

Well, it's the same as if you published a scientific journal about cooking or history.  Sure, might be interesting, but nothing to do with science.

[CJ1145]

However, on the subject of Intelligent Design, what is so inherently wrong about that? No one to date has explained to me what is more logical about life spontaneously generating "on the backs of crystals" as opposed to being deliberately crafted by some third party, be it deity, alien, or flying spaghetti monster.

EDIT: Neruz says he has been banned. I checked his posts and must ask: what in the world did he say worthy of a ban?

[kuro_suna]

Why hasn't it been published in a peer-reviewed article? Because people won't let it be published!

So its a conspiracy now?

You can have it published anywhere you want but if your going to be scientific you can't just say all counter evidence is false, you have to say why carbon dating is wrong even though its based on well tested properties of quantum mechanics.

[Siquo]

Why hasn't it been published in a peer-reviewed article? Because people won't let it be published! Tell you what, go get yourself a scientific career. Then try to publish a paper that even mentions ID. See how long you last.

Are you serious or satiric here? In case of the first... Why don't you?

The sheer number of crackpot scientists claiming the establishment is "against them" and just doesn't want to hear the truth is enough to fill the entire internet.

[Huesoo]

Mass reportation I guess. We are quite classy here you know, if you post something tasteless you get a warning.

[CJ1145]

True Siquo, true. But ID does not equal crackpot, and crackpot does not equal ID. And I'd far prefer working on video games. I can't figure out if the job I'm looking for is computer programmer or software engineer/designer. The terminology is my biggest hurdle at this point.

But back to matter at hand my last post has my more serious question, if you shall direct your attention to it. And not the Neruz thing, the other thing.

[kuro_suna]

However, on the subject of Intelligent Design, what is so inherently wrong about that? No one to date has explained to me what is more logical about life spontaneously generating "on the backs of crystals" as opposed to being deliberately crafted by some third party, be it deity, alien, or flying spaghetti monster.

Because then you have to explain that third party or else it doesn't answer any questions, it just pushes them to one side.

Their would be no science or technology if we just left every question at "God did it".

[CJ1145]

Because then you have to explain that third party or else it doesn't answer any questions, it just pushes them to one side.

Their would be no science or technology if we just left every question at "God did it".

If "God did it" is no acceptable answer, if you do not mind my asking, why is "It happened by chance"?

[kuro_suna]

Because then you have to explain that third party or else it doesn't answer any questions, it just pushes them to one side.

Their would be no science or technology if we just left every question at "God did it".

If "God did it" is no acceptable answer, if you do not mind my asking, why is "It happened by chance"?

Now your just being ignorant and spouting creationist propaganda, learn about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence.

EDIT:
Abiogenesis is technically chance but a good chance when you consider the size of the universe.

[CJ1145]

I cannot help but feel that you are avoiding the question by calling me a creationist and walking away.

And I read the page on emergence, and I have to say, there is a very large gap between wind making patterns in sand and carbon and water combining to form life so complex it's taken us a good 500 years of research to start to wrap our minds around it. And we're still not done.

[kuro_suna]

I cannot help but feel that you are avoiding the question by calling me a creationist and walking away.

And I read the page on emergence, and I have to say, there is a very large gap between wind making patterns in sand and carbon and water combining to form life so complex it's taken us a good 500 years of research to start to wrap our minds around it. And we're still not done.

That's good because thats not how evolution works, Abiogenesis produces simple self replicating molecules and Evolution is the small changes over time that add up to larger changes like cells and multicellular organisms.

I get the feeling your only a creationist because you learned about evolution form other creationists.

[CJ1145]

Incorrect. I spent my time through the eighth grade learning from an evolutionary standpoint (coincidentally, as a child I loved dinosaurs and learned all about them planning to become a paleontologist), at which point I was introduced to the idea of creation. And comparing the two sides, then noting how violently evolutionists reacted to creation, as if they feared it, I figured creationism was the better choice.

And mind you, tiny changes over time? That's proven. I have no problems with that. But the idea that it makes entirely new species is as of yet unproven, and is where I personally draw the line.

[kuro_suna]

Incorrect. I spent my time through the eighth grade learning from an evolutionary standpoint (coincidentally, as a child I loved dinosaurs and learned all about them planning to become a paleontologist)

You should have stuck with it long enough to learn about genetics

, at which point I was introduced to the idea of creation. And comparing the two sides, then noting how violently evolutionists reacted to creation, as if they feared it, I figured creationism was the better choice.

My belief is correct because "inset Ad hominem attack here"

And mind you, tiny changes over time? That's proven. I have no problems with that. But the idea that it makes entirely new species is as of yet unproven, and is where I personally draw the line.

This I don't understand, so over 5,000 years a wolf can become a chiwawa but not a pterodactyl to chicken in a million years.

[chaoticag]

Because then you have to explain that third party or else it doesn't answer any questions, it just pushes them to one side.

Their would be no science or technology if we just left every question at "God did it".

If "God did it" is no acceptable answer, if you do not mind my asking, why is "It happened by chance"?

Because "God did it" stops scientific advancement? And why shouldn't things happen by chance anyway? The chances of winning the lottery is pretty small, yet it happens from time to time. And no, life didn't happen by chance, it was an eventuality. It didn't spring into existence, it came gradually. All you need is one self replicating entity, one that is capable of reproducing itself by picking up scattered organic matter. Eventually, it makes a mistake, and that mistake is passed on most of the time, as long as it doesn't interfere with the replication process, or affect it's chances of survival. Eventually, you end up with bacteria, and those make mistakes replicating themselves, and that leads to more complexity.

The math behind this is a hundred percent sound, it's not like trying to put together a math textbook by chance, but by starting with 2+2=4, and working your way up. Mistakes may be made, but they get tested and thrown out, and you end up with calculus. That doesn't mean there is an Intelligent designer at all, or even a creator.

And still, I see no evidence of such an entity. To say God did it, you need infallible proof that there is one to begin with. Otherwise, you are jumping to conclusions with no basis.

And CJ, evolution was published under The Origin of Species, not The Origin of Life. And really, are we reacting violently, and not debating? All I'm asking for is proof, and evolution has been misrepresented in classes when it is rolled into creationism.

[CJ1145]

You should have stuck with it long enough to learn about genetics

What part of genetics, specifically? I may know something of it. Or I may not. No promises.

My belief is correct because "inset Ad hominem attack here"

Har har.

This I don't understand, so over 5,000 years a wolf can become a chiwawa but not a pterodactyl to chicken in a million years.

Ah, this one is quite simple. A wolf and a chihuahua are very different, yes, but they are both recognizably canines. A pteranodon (and I KNOW you mean pteranodon, because everyone mixes it up with the fucking pterodactyl) has nothing in common with a chicken beyond wings (which on a chicken are practically vestigial) and what could generously be called a beak. And don't get me started on skeletal structure, because I'm fully aware that all flying non-insects share SOME things in common, because without them they couldn't even fly.

Because "God did it" stops scientific advancement? And why shouldn't things happen by chance anyway? The chances of winning the lottery is pretty small, yet it happens from time to time. And no, life didn't happen by chance, it was an eventuality. It didn't spring into existence, it came gradually. All you need is one self replicating entity, one that is capable of reproducing itself by picking up scattered organic matter. Eventually, it makes a mistake, and that mistake is passed on most of the time, as long as it doesn't interfere with the replication process, or affect it's chances of survival. Eventually, you end up with bacteria, and those make mistakes replicating themselves, and that leads to more complexity.

The math behind this is a hundred percent sound, it's not like trying to put together a math textbook by chance, but by starting with 2+2=4, and working your way up. Mistakes may be made, but they get tested and thrown out, and you end up with calculus. That doesn't mean there is an Intelligent designer at all, or even a creator.

And still, I see no evidence of such an entity. To say God did it, you need infallible proof that there is one to begin with. Otherwise, you are jumping to conclusions with no basis.

And CJ, evolution was published under The Origin of Species, not The Origin of Life. And really, are we reacting violently, and not debating? All I'm asking for is proof, and evolution has been misrepresented in classes when it is rolled into creationism.

Well. This could take a while.

First off, who in the world says the existence of a God would stop scientific advancement? Back in the 16th-18th centuries, do you know why many scientists set out to do their jobs? It wasn't to disprove God or find a natural explanation. It was to explore the world their God had placed before them, to find out all the secrets their Creator had stuffed away, not to find out how it came to be, but how it works. And frankly that sounds a lot more useful to me.

And as for for the gradual advancement, I apologize profusely because I'm about to use a way overdone phrase. How can something like this explain free will, and the human mind? To use your math analogy, when the textbook is completed it can tell you anything you wish about math. But despite that, beyond the subject of math it is worth nothing, it cannot tell you anything outside of its specific niche.

And as a rather douchey counter, I admit, to your own statement, to say that chance brought it about, you need infallible proof that chance can produce such an event. Otherwise, you are jumping to conclusions. I would kindly (and honestly, as I know there is a lack of emotion within text) ask that you show me this infallible proof.

Finally, no, I don't believe this is violent as all. To say that all evolutionists are violent is a gross generalization, as is saying all creationists only believe what they believe because they are ignorant or insane *coughDawkinscough*

I am afraid that I, personally, cannot give you the proof you need, and if you are so entrenched within your beliefs as I am within mine I am afraid that a visit from Jesus himself would not change your mind.