Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
24 online now:
AZPaul3, Dr Adequate, vimesey (3 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,768 Year: 16,804/19,786 Month: 929/2,598 Week: 175/251 Day: 4/59 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 71 of 219 (526432)
09-27-2009 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by ICdesign
09-27-2009 10:57 AM


Re: bump for ICDESIGN,
If you want to believe in all the miracles that would have had to take place for all this to have fallen into perfect symmetrical place without the help of any intelligent guidance actually happened, hey, go right ahead down your little fantasy trail.

No miracles needed. Mutation and natural selection works just fine.

Here is a link on an on-line lecture that may help explain this:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID...

But I will not entertain your platform of blasphemy and listen to you mock the design of God with your arrogant summations as if you were capable of designing a smarter, more efficient body system!

As for blasphemy, Heinlein had a good take on that:

Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing - with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for the second and third place.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ICdesign, posted 09-27-2009 10:57 AM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ICdesign, posted 09-27-2009 4:20 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 79 by ICdesign, posted 10-03-2009 8:18 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 80 of 219 (527994)
10-03-2009 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by ICdesign
10-03-2009 8:13 PM


Ancient folklore or empirical evidence?
How do you explain this?

I explain it as the result of evolution.

How do you explain it?

And if your answer involves the supernatural or miracles or some such, please provide empirical evidence to support that answer lest your response fall into the category of belief in ancient folklore rather than science (this is the Science Forum, after all).


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ICdesign, posted 10-03-2009 8:13 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ICdesign, posted 10-03-2009 10:01 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 81 of 219 (527995)
10-03-2009 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICdesign
10-03-2009 8:18 PM


Re: bump for ICDESIGN,
please see my post number 77

Please see my post number 80.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICdesign, posted 10-03-2009 8:18 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 84 of 219 (528010)
10-03-2009 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICdesign
10-03-2009 10:01 PM


Re: Ancient folklore or empirical evidence?
Empirical evidence?

How about mutation plus natural selection x lots of time?

And what do you have to match that?

Why do you think biological scientists accept the evidence for evolution? They know it best, so you would think that if the evidence was deficient they would know.

And what do you have to offer that contradicts all of their research and studies.

Incredulity? Ancient folklore? Religious belief? Scripture? "Divine" revelation?

This is a Science Forum. You need to do better than that here.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICdesign, posted 10-03-2009 10:01 PM ICdesign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by ICdesign, posted 10-03-2009 10:42 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 113 of 219 (529860)
10-10-2009 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Buzsaw
10-10-2009 8:28 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Silly design = The designer effecting the pre-evolution abiogenesis of the first living organism on tiny planet earth after which he leaves it to design itself from there on from the mirey soup.

What does creationism have to do with intelligent design?

I thought creationism was a religious belief, while intelligent design was a science.

Or at least that's what we are being asked to believe.

If you really want to support intelligent design, try posting 1) without any reference to religious belief, and 2) without attacking the theory of evolution. If intelligent design has any legs to stand on lets see them.

(But it doesn't; it is "designed" to sneak religion back into the schools by pretending to be a science, in much the same way creation "science" tried earlier--before the epic FAIL! of Edwards vs. Aguillard.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2009 8:28 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2009 10:07 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 115 of 219 (529884)
10-10-2009 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Buzsaw
10-10-2009 10:07 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Hi Coyote. For the purpose of this topic I did not designate a designer. The designer is a generic term which could refer to a god entity or some super intelligence from a highly advanced planet from the cosmos etc.

You titled your post "Creationist Side Of Silly Design."

I ask again, what do creationists have to do with intelligent or any other kind of design pretending to be a science?

(But I have already answered that in my previous post.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2009 10:07 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2009 9:13 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 120 of 219 (530034)
10-11-2009 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Buzsaw
10-11-2009 11:27 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
I don't think it's fair to classify intelligent design with astrology. That's as illogical as classifying a Model T Ford with a 2009 Cadilac.

Intelligent design clearly is not science; it was concocted after the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision of the Supreme Court, which banned creation "science" from the classrooms, as another way to get creation "science" back into the classrooms. Discerning that is not rocket science.

Then there's the "cdesign proponentsists" from The Pandas Thumb that gave the whole sordid affair away. After the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision that book was edited to replace "creationists" with "design proponents" -- except that through a boo-boo in cut and paste they ended up with "cdesign proponentsists" in a draft. This was discovered during preparation for the Dover decision that determined that creation "science" and intelligent design are both religion.

Further, creation "science" and intelligent design are both inherently anti-science, as is astrology. All three of these clearly reject the scientific method, but attempt to steal the reputation for accuracy that science has accrued over the decades and centuries in order to fool the unwary.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2009 11:27 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 148 of 219 (530517)
10-13-2009 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by ICdesign
10-13-2009 9:05 PM


I don't got to show you no stinkin' proof!
You sir have failed to prove...

Intelligent design proponents (or is it "cdesign proponentsists"?) have the burden of proof to show that their claims are science, and that they follow the scientific method.

So far they have failed.

Instead, the evidence--including a decision from a Federal District Court--shows that ID is religion lite, and it is not hard to see that it arose after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, in an effort to sneak religion back into the classrooms.

No legitimate universities teach ID. The only ones that have a serious ID program are (surprise!) fundamentalist Christian universities.

There are no serious scientific research programs studying ID. A few fundamentalists who also happen to be scientists (e.g., Behe) try to push their religious beliefs as science, but so far they have been epic failures! The evidence just doesn't support their claims! And they can't twist and misrepresent it enough to convince anyone other than fundamentalists who share their beliefs.

The truth is they can't follow the scientific method. It leads to answers that are inconvenient for their beliefs.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by ICdesign, posted 10-13-2009 9:05 PM ICdesign has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 363 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 156 of 219 (531293)
10-16-2009 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Buzsaw
10-16-2009 8:57 PM


Re: The Human Skull Not Silly.
The first man, according to the Genesis record was designed for a far less violent planet than it became after the fall, so no, the human skull doesn't fit the description of silly design for the environment which it was designed.

Actually the human skull is beautiful. I've examined thousands over the years.

And it shows our history.

During my first human osteology course in grad school, we learned all of the bones of the skull right down to identifying them from just small fragments. We had to identify the name of the bone and the side (for those bones that were bilateral).

After we had finished with the human skull the professor brought out a number of other primate skulls, all the way back to some of the small monkeys. It was amazing--we knew all of those bones too! They had somewhat different shapes and sizes, but there was never a question of which bone matched those of the human skull.

No, sorry. The human skull's shape is not silly. It is opportunistic, and it shows our history.

And it doesn't matter what genesis says; we can read the history of our species in the bones. (Genetics confirms that history independently, as well.)

Buzz, you believe what you want, but when it comes to natural events supported by empirical evidence, don't try to tell us what is real.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 10-16-2009 8:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019