Intelligent Design Thoery

Message boards : Politics : Intelligent Design Thoery
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 21 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1226650 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 13:49:33 UTC - in response to Message 1226635.  

A more correct datapoint is that in Europe, 25% say they are athiests, while in the US, only 15% say they are athiests.

Steve

As I said before:
Ignore inconvenient facts, a requirement of belief.

ID: 1226650 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1226677 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 14:48:47 UTC - in response to Message 1226650.  
Last modified: 3 May 2012, 14:51:30 UTC

What is the figure among scientists in the US and elsewhere. I'll bet it runs to 60%. I have seen higher numbers in the UK for atheism among the general population. from Wikipedia:

"A majority (53%) of Canadians believe in God. What is of particular interest is that 28% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics, and 23% of those who attend weekly religious services do not."
ID: 1226677 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1226737 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 16:58:40 UTC

Since we are talking statistically......

"George H. Gallup" wrote:
“I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone-the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”


This follows the same math of Intelligent Life outside of our own Solar System. I have given you tha math of Drake, not that you alrady didn't know it and the odds are indeed less then zero. As are the odds Mr. Gallup has showen.

Is there Intelligence in YOUR design, William Rothamel, Gary Charpentier, Blank man, SciManStev, Chris S? If the answer is yes, there is Intelligence in your design, how did intelligence get between your ears?


ID: 1226737 · Report as offensive
Profile SciManStev Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Jun 99
Posts: 6651
Credit: 121,090,076
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1226749 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 17:16:05 UTC - in response to Message 1226737.  


Is there Intelligence in YOUR design, William Rothamel, Gary Charpentier, Blank man, SciManStev, Chris S? If the answer is yes, there is Intelligence in your design, how did intelligence get between your ears?



Genetics, traced back over hundreds of millions of years.

Steve
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website
ID: 1226749 · Report as offensive
Profile SciManStev Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Jun 99
Posts: 6651
Credit: 121,090,076
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1226755 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 17:29:45 UTC

I can give a far more comprehensive answer later when I get home from work.

Steve
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website
ID: 1226755 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1226758 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 17:38:11 UTC - in response to Message 1226737.  

Is there Intelligence in YOUR design? If the answer is yes, there is Intelligence in your design, how did intelligence get between your ears?


The term "design" suggests a "designer". I have no designer. My being is made up of millions of years of evolution, and my intelligence is a collection of various observations, both from those before me and of my own, met with skeptical criticism introduced to me by other great skeptics of the past who have sought to challenge long held myths of our entire race. A skepticism, as we have noted, that is growing rapidly as those myths are proven untrue.
ID: 1226758 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1226766 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 18:00:58 UTC - in response to Message 1226755.  

I can give a far more comprehensive answer later when I get home from work.

Steve



If you disregard the below quote your answer means nothing at all. I will listen nevertheless.

"George H. Gallup" wrote:
“I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone-the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”


ID: 1226766 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1226770 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 18:13:51 UTC - in response to Message 1226766.  
Last modified: 3 May 2012, 18:14:09 UTC

If you disregard the below quote your answer means nothing at all. I will listen nevertheless.

"George H. Gallup" wrote:
“I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone-the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”


George is right, but his conclusion is wrong. The human body and all of its functions didn't "just happen". They evolved over millions of years to provide the best fit for survival of the species. Otherwise, if our bodies were somehow statistical monstrosities that indicate some sort of "designed" advanced function, why can't we fend off the simplest of bacterial or viral infections?

Poor Mr. Gallup just simply couldn't understand the nature behind his own mathematical question.
ID: 1226770 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1226779 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 18:34:09 UTC - in response to Message 1226737.  

Is there Intelligence in YOUR design, William Rothamel, Gary Charpentier, Blank man, SciManStev, Chris S? If the answer is yes, there is Intelligence in your design, how did intelligence get between your ears?

Infinity is a big number. Given an infinity of time evolution will produce me, and more than once.

ID: 1226779 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1226849 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 21:09:19 UTC - in response to Message 1226770.  
Last modified: 3 May 2012, 21:11:16 UTC

If you disregard the below quote your answer means nothing at all. I will listen nevertheless.

"George H. Gallup" wrote:
“I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone-the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”


George is right, but his conclusion is wrong. The human body and all of its functions didn't "just happen". They evolved over millions of years to provide the best fit for survival of the species. Otherwise, if our bodies were somehow statistical monstrosities that indicate some sort of "designed" advanced function, why can't we fend off the simplest of bacterial or viral infections?

Poor Mr. Gallup just simply couldn't understand the nature behind his own mathematical question.


And you seem not to understand chance and how long it takes for so called chance to accure.

"Do you wish to rise? Begin by descending. You plan a tower that will pierce the clouds? Lay first the foundation of humility." ~ Saint Augustine

I doubt you read the link. Then again, if you do, I have my doubts you will believe. But in the end it dosen't matter if you believe or not. But just like intelligent life being outside of our Solar System the chance is less then zero. You either ignor or don't understand the odds of statistical math. You cling to the Orthodoxy of Neo-Darwinism like I do my Bible and firearms. Yep, Im a Klingon; [Neo-Darwinism] 'oH [a] Qot!
ID: 1226849 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1226852 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 21:12:58 UTC - in response to Message 1226737.  
Last modified: 3 May 2012, 21:13:39 UTC

Since we are talking statistically......

"George H. Gallup" wrote:
“I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone-the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”


This follows the same math of Intelligent Life outside of our own Solar System. I have given you tha math of Drake, not that you alrady didn't know it and the odds are indeed less then zero. As are the odds Mr. Gallup has showen.

Is there Intelligence in YOUR design, William Rothamel, Gary Charpentier, Blank man, SciManStev, Chris S? If the answer is yes, there is Intelligence in your design, how did intelligence get between your ears?


Seeing as you raised the Drake equation again, I'll repeat a question I asked in another thread, "Who asserts that the Drake equation is scientifically valid?".

I'm not sure what your fascination is with the Drake equation, though you already know it shows nothing but the prejudices of the person (or persons) providing values for the variables.

You can't answer why a designer would give all vertebrates one type of camera eye (complete with a blind spot), and cephalopods a different type of camera eye (that does not have a blind spot). Your previous attempt to provide an explanation only appears to answer why land based vertebrates have the inferior "design". Your attempt at explaining why your designer would provide a number of different types of vertebrates with the gene to encode the VMAT2 protein (the so-called God gene) started and stopped with humor.

Your faith in ID is simply that, faith, aka belief regardless of evidence.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1226852 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1226853 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 21:18:27 UTC - in response to Message 1226779.  

Is there Intelligence in YOUR design, William Rothamel, Gary Charpentier, Blank man, SciManStev, Chris S? If the answer is yes, there is Intelligence in your design, how did intelligence get between your ears?

Infinity is a big number. Given an infinity of time evolution will produce me, and more than once.

You imply that there is such a thing as infinity. Even the Universe has it's limits, something like 14 billion light years. There are odds that I will disappear off the face of the earth and reappear on Mars. That is first longer then the life span I have and also the life span of the universe.

"You are a master of the words you don't say
and a slave to the ones you do." ~ Unknown




ID: 1226853 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1226856 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 21:25:29 UTC
Last modified: 3 May 2012, 21:28:23 UTC

"bobby" wrote:
...inferior...


"Blank Man" wrote:
George is right, but his conclusion is wrong. The human body and all of its functions didn't "just happen". They evolved over millions of years to provide the best fit for survival of the species. Otherwise, if our bodies were somehow statistical monstrosities that indicate some sort of "designed" advanced function, why can't we fend off the simplest of bacterial or viral infections?

Poor Mr. Gallup just simply couldn't understand the nature behind his own mathematical question.


If you will note---bobby---the above quote from Blank Man, I'll help ya out by pointing right at it for ya..."The human body and all of its functions didn't "just happen". They evolved over millions of years to provide the best fit for survival of the species."

Thank you very much for your time and effort in this subject. It matters not if I believe or not, this is not the matter here. You say you believe in Darwin yet you seem to be in conflict with the 'nature' [if I may] of it.

Thank you, thank you very much for your time and effort.
ID: 1226856 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1226860 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 21:33:23 UTC - in response to Message 1226849.  
Last modified: 3 May 2012, 21:36:01 UTC

"Do you wish to rise? Begin by descending. You plan a tower that will pierce the clouds? Lay first the foundation of humility." ~ Saint Augustine

I doubt you read the link. Then again, if you do, I have my doubts you will believe. But in the end it dosen't matter if you believe or not.


Quite right, it doesn't matter. The article posits the chances of something happening that no evolutionary biologist believes has taken place, that one species converts to another. Evolutionary biologists don't believe that chimpanzees evolved into humans, they believe both chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor, and that both modern species are genetically different to that common ancestor.

You imply that there is such a thing as infinity. Even the Universe has it's limits, something like 14 billion light years.


The age of the universe is put at a little under 14 billion years, that would give the radius of the universe at a little under 14 billion light years (without accounting for the effects of the inflationary epoch).

If you will note---bobby---the above quote from Blank Man, I'll help ya out by pointing right at it for ya..."The human body and all of its functions didn't "just happen". They evolved over millions of years to provide the best fit for survival of the species."

Thank you very much for your time and effort in this subject. It matters not if I believe or not, this is not the matter here. You say you believe in Darwin yet you seem to be in conflict with the 'nature' [if I may] of it.


Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism can and do explain why there are two types of camera eyes, it seems ID cannot.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1226860 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1226862 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 21:38:08 UTC - in response to Message 1226849.  

If you disregard the below quote your answer means nothing at all. I will listen nevertheless.

"George H. Gallup" wrote:
“I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone-the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”


George is right, but his conclusion is wrong. The human body and all of its functions didn't "just happen". They evolved over millions of years to provide the best fit for survival of the species. Otherwise, if our bodies were somehow statistical monstrosities that indicate some sort of "designed" advanced function, why can't we fend off the simplest of bacterial or viral infections?

Poor Mr. Gallup just simply couldn't understand the nature behind his own mathematical question.


And you seem not to understand chance and how long it takes for so called chance to accure.


Again, its not chance. Its changes that occur out of necessity for survival of the species.

"Do you wish to rise? Begin by descending. You plan a tower that will pierce the clouds? Lay first the foundation of humility." ~ Saint Augustine

I doubt you read the link. Then again, if you do, I have my doubts you will believe. But in the end it dosen't matter if you believe or not.


Yes, I read the link. No, it didn't make me a believer because it is nothing more than an Op-Ed piece, as is the entire site, from ID proponents trying to pretend their opinions hold any scientific weight.

You either ignor or don't understand the odds of statistical math.


Ah, and either/or logical statement. Let me rewrite it as such:

If I don't agree with your conclusion, I must ignore the odds of statistical math.

If I don't agree with your conclusion, I must not understand the odds of statistical math.

Hmmm... seems like there's room for adjustments in your logic, as you seem to leave no room for alternative arguments that are equally true. Perhaps you need to define your statistical scope and your representative sample size, and figure out your error margin showing your proof.

I counter-propose that your statistical math has started with a presumptuous start by attempting to prove the existence of a Designer, then using the math to match your conclusion.

You cling to the Orthodoxy of Neo-Darwinism like I do my Bible and firearms. Yep, Im a Klingon; [Neo-Darwinism] 'oH [a] Qot!


I'm OK with firearms, and I'll agree, your statistical math 'oH [a] Qot [am/is a lie]!
ID: 1226862 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1226864 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 21:45:21 UTC - in response to Message 1226856.  

"bobby" wrote:
...inferior...


"Blank Man" wrote:
George is right, but his conclusion is wrong. The human body and all of its functions didn't "just happen". They evolved over millions of years to provide the best fit for survival of the species. Otherwise, if our bodies were somehow statistical monstrosities that indicate some sort of "designed" advanced function, why can't we fend off the simplest of bacterial or viral infections?

Poor Mr. Gallup just simply couldn't understand the nature behind his own mathematical question.


If you will note---bobby---the above quote from Blank Man, I'll help ya out by pointing right at it for ya..."The human body and all of its functions didn't "just happen". They evolved over millions of years to provide the best fit for survival of the species."

Thank you very much for your time and effort in this subject. It matters not if I believe or not, this is not the matter here. You say you believe in Darwin yet you seem to be in conflict with the 'nature' [if I may] of it.

Thank you, thank you very much for your time and effort.


What part of Darwinism says that everything "just happened"? I'm pretty sure that Darwinism purports that each change happened for a specific reason to help the species survive.
ID: 1226864 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1226867 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 21:51:55 UTC
Last modified: 3 May 2012, 21:53:32 UTC

bobby,

You short quoted me again. And you answered questions not posed to you, bad form.

You either believe in Neo-Darwinism or you do not. If you do, we have the eyes we have because they ARE the best fit for our species. You are not the designer nor are you in charge of what is best for all of us, regardless of design or chance.

ID is not making the attempt to explain why there are two types of camera eyes.
ID: 1226867 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1226868 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 21:57:15 UTC - in response to Message 1226864.  

"bobby" wrote:
...inferior...


"Blank Man" wrote:
George is right, but his conclusion is wrong. The human body and all of its functions didn't "just happen". They evolved over millions of years to provide the best fit for survival of the species. Otherwise, if our bodies were somehow statistical monstrosities that indicate some sort of "designed" advanced function, why can't we fend off the simplest of bacterial or viral infections?

Poor Mr. Gallup just simply couldn't understand the nature behind his own mathematical question.


If you will note---bobby---the above quote from Blank Man, I'll help ya out by pointing right at it for ya..."The human body and all of its functions didn't "just happen". They evolved over millions of years to provide the best fit for survival of the species."

Thank you very much for your time and effort in this subject. It matters not if I believe or not, this is not the matter here. You say you believe in Darwin yet you seem to be in conflict with the 'nature' [if I may] of it.

Thank you, thank you very much for your time and effort.


What part of Darwinism says that everything "just happened"? I'm pretty sure that Darwinism purports that each change happened for a specific reason to help the species survive.



Blank Man..."Darwinism purports that each change happened for a specific reason to help the species survive."

In bold letters,...to help..., you imply an underlaying rhyme for reason? I imply a Guiding Hand, not fate.
ID: 1226868 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1226880 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 22:27:53 UTC - in response to Message 1226867.  

bobby,

You short quoted me again. And you answered questions not posed to you, bad form.

You either believe in Neo-Darwinism or you do not. If you do, we have the eyes we have because they ARE the best fit for our species. You are not the designer nor are you in charge of what is best for all of us, regardless of design or chance.

ID is not making the attempt to explain why there are two types of camera eyes.


"Short quoting" is objectionable if it removes context and thereby distorts intent. Please show how my quotes distorted your comments. If you want a specific person to respond to your posts, make it clear in your posts or send your question via PM.

You have failed again to respond to the Drake question.

For ID to be a rational explanation of the variety we can see around us it must be able to explain why cephalopods have a better designed camera eye than vertebrates. And there's the rub, it's not rational, it makes no attempt to explain, it assumes some supernatural entity did it for an inexplicable reason, thus it is not science and has no business being taught in a science classroom.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1226880 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1226882 - Posted: 3 May 2012, 22:34:30 UTC - in response to Message 1226853.  

Is there Intelligence in YOUR design, William Rothamel, Gary Charpentier, Blank man, SciManStev, Chris S? If the answer is yes, there is Intelligence in your design, how did intelligence get between your ears?

Infinity is a big number. Given an infinity of time evolution will produce me, and more than once.

You imply that there is such a thing as infinity. Even the Universe has it's limits, something like 14 billion light years. There are odds that I will disappear off the face of the earth and reappear on Mars. That is first longer then the life span I have and also the life span of the universe.

The universe is infinite. It does not have a start, nor an end. The observable universe is about 14bly across. This is not the size of the universe, which is infinite. We already observe the effects of stuff outside our bubble upon stuff inside. Galaxy clusters with wrong velocities for the universe being closed.

I would do a simple thought process, but I believe you wish to remain ignorant. However for the rest of the readers of the thread:

Draw a circle and put a point at the center. Call the center point earth. Call the edge of the circle 14bly. Now put a point just a split hair inside the circle. Draw a circle around that point the same size 14bly. Only the stuff inside both circles is stuff both observers can see. But each observer can see a whole lot of universe the other can't. Add another point a hare inside the second circle in line with the others. Draw another circle. Keep doing this with the points in a line and you get to an infinite size universe but each only having an observable size of 14bly.

ID: 1226882 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 21 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Intelligent Design Thoery


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.