Intelligent Design Thoery |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : Politics : Intelligent Design Thoery
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 22 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
I'll wait on Nick. | |
| ID: 1226423 · | |
If one were to design a planet it is best to start off with Ringworld and then change the laws of nature so that it is stable. As in Time Bandits it would be better to start with with computers on day one along with several other good ideas. I think you mean Terry Pratchett. Personally I prefer D.N. Adams' works. ____________ I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... | |
| ID: 1226441 · | |
|
π | |
| ID: 1226520 · | |
π Oh, I should add Im not the first to think along these lines. ...just sayin! Good night folks! | |
| ID: 1226533 · | |
|
Not entirely sure what the arguments or the opinions expressed here are actually saying. A fractal can be a thing of immense beauty and complexity; yet, it follows a simple equation. Intelligent design ? Hardly, just Nature in the form of mathematics. | |
| ID: 1226598 · | |
I think you mean Terry Pratchett. Personally I prefer D.N. Adams' works. Oooops, yes of course I meant Pratchett! BTW, good post William! It is a point that the Golden Ratio will be the same anywhere in the universe, whether it is used by centipedes in slime or 10 legged spiders. The same goes for the ratio between the radius and the circumference of a circle. They are fixed mathematical constants that just are what they are, and not by design. | |
| ID: 1226601 · | |
denoting Intelligence in the Design; God to most of us. 95% of us. Yes, there is a severe lack of understanding of science in the majority of the population, but I think your estimate is quite skewed to favor your view. It is clear that some people prefer to draw their own conclusions instead of letting the data lead them to the right one. All the more reason why we need better science curriculum taught in schools, and not that presumptuous crap taught by Intelligent Design. Just sayin. | |
| ID: 1226617 · | |
|
A more correct datapoint is that in Europe, 25% say they are athiests, while in the US, only 15% say they are athiests. | |
| ID: 1226635 · | |
|
[Off-topic] Things start to look really interesting when you look at the non-believer category, which includes Atheists and Agnostics (which I still argue that many Agnostics are Atheists whom are asking themselves the wrong question). I've seen some statistics that put the number as high as 30% of the population. ...and I wonder how much higher that number would be if Atheism weren't such a political career-killer or didn't carry the social stigma that it does. | |
| ID: 1226649 · | |
A more correct datapoint is that in Europe, 25% say they are athiests, while in the US, only 15% say they are athiests. As I said before: Ignore inconvenient facts, a requirement of belief. ____________ | |
| ID: 1226650 · | |
|
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: | |
| ID: 1226677 · | |
|
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 · | |
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 · | |
|
I can give a far more comprehensive answer later when I get home from work. | |
| ID: 1226755 · | |
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 · | |
I can give a far more comprehensive answer later when I get home from work. 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 · | |
If you disregard the below quote your answer means nothing at all. I will listen nevertheless. 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 · | |
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 · | |
If you disregard the below quote your answer means nothing at all. I will listen nevertheless. 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 · | |
Since we are talking statistically...... 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 · | |
Message boards : Politics : Intelligent Design Thoery
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |