Skip to comments.
What is wrong with intelligent design?
EurekAlert! ^
| 22-Feb-2007
| Suzanne Wu
Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420, 421-440, 441-460 ... 641-649 next last
To: Wakeup Sleeper
post alittle more english that all.
421
posted on
03/18/2007 9:20:29 PM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: Wakeup Sleeper
What do you mean how many were there? I dont get your pharisitical scrutiny? You are claiming scientific support for ID. I asked how may "intelligent designers" there are and what is your justification for your answer.
I have asked several times, but received no answer having anything to do with science.
Perhaps you have no scientific answer, just a religious belief?
422
posted on
03/18/2007 9:22:53 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Coyoteman
Make no sense coyoteman! what you should be saying is evolutionism has no science, because it doesnt support evolution that for sure. But it does support Intelligent design. so what would be the smarter train of thought?
To: Wakeup Sleeper
One you've obviously missed.
424
posted on
03/18/2007 9:29:49 PM PDT
by
Gumlegs
To: Wakeup Sleeper
Make no sense coyoteman! what you should be saying is evolutionism has no science, because it doesnt support evolution that for sure. But it does support Intelligent design. so what would be the smarter train of thought? You are a troll.
Good night.
425
posted on
03/18/2007 9:34:35 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Central Scrutiniser
"Has Gould ever proclaimed himself a creator? Moot point."
"If a truly intelligent designer were responsible for the panda, Gould argues, it would have provided a more useful tool than the stubby proto-thumb that pandas use to laboriously strip bamboo in order to eat it."
In order to be an authority on what a "useful" panda thumb should or shouldn't be, it seems Gould would had to have come up with a better one at some point, otherwise his statement is hubris, at best. Unless and until he does, he's staked out a position reserved for those who actually know how to MAKE a panda thumb.
426
posted on
03/18/2007 10:18:10 PM PDT
by
Stingray
("Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.")
To: Stingray
Wow, that was so incredibly lame of a response.
Gould doesn't proclaim himself as a creator in that quote, not even close.
Its called speculation based on data, speculating about something doesn't make you a self proclaimed creator.
Lame
427
posted on
03/18/2007 10:20:41 PM PDT
by
Central Scrutiniser
(Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
To: Central Scrutiniser
"Gould doesn't proclaim himself as a creator in that quote, not even close."
If you're going to presume to tell someone how to do it better, shouldn't you know how to do it yourself?
If you're going to tell someone that they built a crappy panda thumb, shouldn't you have at least created a better one before criticising theirs?
Talk is cheap. Gould talks alot.
Gould's position is hubris. (Look up that word if it's too advanced for you). Unless and until he can create a better, more useful panda thumb, he's talking out his rear.
428
posted on
03/18/2007 10:38:56 PM PDT
by
Stingray
("Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.")
To: Stingray
God really screwed up on the dodo.
There, now you probably think I am a self proclaimed deity.
Seriously, get a better argument, this one is pathetic.
429
posted on
03/18/2007 10:50:44 PM PDT
by
Central Scrutiniser
(Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
To: Wakeup Sleeper
Well, now, your post #387, is not much different from the rest of your postings...you seem almost proud of your bad spelling...how sad...
To: Wakeup Sleeper
Believeing in God and Christ is looking at what is around us taking what has been given us looking at the factual evidence as it says in Romans that by the very nature od things there is no excuse that will be excepted for non believers. But you are acting as everything is allowed for the believer:
- you make statements you cannot back-up
- you give lists of names you obviously haven't checked
- you don't care for science
I understand that you think of this as a kind of
witnessing. And I couldn't care less: Annoy your fellow Christians in the name of your particular Lord and drive them away from your special way to the paradise, fine. For this behavior one should invent the term deproselytism or
antiproselytism :-)
But: You look stupid. And you let those conservatives ,who don't correct you, look stupid. And that's IMO a no-no on a conservative website.
But - perhaps - that's just what you want to do.
To: Central Scrutiniser
No, like Gould, I think you're a small man with a big mouth, who - being unable to create anything at all - finds some small comfort in thinking you can make yourself look smarter by criticising the work of others. Er...that was the point of my original reply to you. Thanks for taking the bait.
432
posted on
03/19/2007 12:26:28 AM PDT
by
Stingray
("Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.")
To: Wakeup Sleeper
"[...]europe is immoral but africa is even more and they are finding out now that aids maynot even be stopped by condoms because the virus is 50 times smaller than the tiny holes that are in latex."
Look at the statistics for child pregnancies and abortions in the US and you see which states are most amoral?
Bye the way, good condoms are tested with electricity. An electron is smaller than any virus.
Like all of your posts: always unsupported claims.
433
posted on
03/19/2007 5:14:29 AM PDT
by
MHalblaub
("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
To: Wakeup Sleeper
"You are a great kidder, you dont fool anyone! look up the crime rates etc... 20 30 40 50 years ago and compare them to today and quit kidding yourself! "
I did. Did you, too?
434
posted on
03/19/2007 5:17:59 AM PDT
by
MHalblaub
("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
To: Wakeup Sleeper
"Thats funny cause even those while clinton was in office and the intelligence and brittish and other intelligence all said that there were WMDs."
Yes, the US provided Saddam with biological and chemical weapons technology.
But did the Iraq have WMD when Mr. Colin Powell claimed it pre war? No over intelligence service claimed that.
"And for you humanitarians who are big hypocrites what was being done against the Iraqi people alone over in Iraq alone was justification for going there."
Well, this is not a really a good point for starting a war. There are countries with a worser humanitarian situation but with less oil. Do you know how many Iraqi people were killed due to Saddam's regime and how many due to the US invasion?
But we've gone of topic and you missed the point.
I believed President Bush more than Saddam Hussein. But you still hide even your sources.
435
posted on
03/19/2007 5:37:14 AM PDT
by
MHalblaub
("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
To: Wakeup Sleeper
"look up--- sodom and gomorah rediscovered"
http://arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htmhttp://accuracyingenesis.com/sodom.html
The two sides you mentioned give different locations for the places and different causes. So what? I saw no chemical analysis but just some bizarre claims of sandy hill being a fortress and another one being a sphinx. Not only sulfur is yellow potassium peroxide is yellow, too.
Strange crystals you can found there very often. Have you been there, too?
Do you really think I'll take these sides as scientific or even reliable? Just look yourself at them once more.
436
posted on
03/19/2007 6:08:52 AM PDT
by
MHalblaub
("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
To: Wakeup Sleeper
Heres a known evolutionist you might know Issac Asimov---his credits? He was a science fiction writer, dumb da dumb dumb!In addition to being a PhD and professor of biochemistry. And being able to spell.
437
posted on
03/19/2007 6:50:02 AM PDT
by
js1138
(The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
To: Stingray
Yadda yadda yadda.
I criticize the work of others, sure, who doesn't.
In fact, I criticize Kent Hovind and every thing he does, especially his taxes, oh, wait, he doesn't.
Come up with a a real argument, now you are just in the silly kook category.
438
posted on
03/19/2007 7:18:13 AM PDT
by
Central Scrutiniser
(Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
To: Wakeup Sleeper
It is revealing to see that it isn't just evolution you're uncomfortable with. You basically despise any science that doesn't jibe well with your presumed mythological framework.
Thanks, but I'll take reality.
439
posted on
03/19/2007 8:57:02 AM PDT
by
voltaires_zit
(Government is the problem, not the answer.)
To: dan1123
"I agree that the author has a willful blindness towards evolution when speaking about "mini-ID". I came across this quote:"
"The important scientific strategy of rendering theories testable by finding independently justified auxiliary propositions does not work for mini-ID. We have no independent evidence concerning which auxiliary propositions about the putative designers goals and abilities are true."
"It could just as well be rendered:"
"The important scientific strategy of rendering theories testable by finding independently justified auxiliary propositions does not work for evolution. We have no independent evidence concerning which auxiliary propositions about mutation and natural selections goals and capabilities are true."
I'm not sure why you think the two statements are in any way equivalent.
The Designer is assumed to be an intelligence capable of designing and producing such changes in DNA that humans are the result. ID assumes that we can identity the result of that bit twiddling through the bit twiddling and subsequent production techniques. For us to differentiate between a natural process and the Designer's work we necessarily need to know the Designer's goals (ID relies on identifying intent) and abilities (manufacturing indicators). Since these are necessary to define a difference between naturally occurring and designed features they are valid requirements for auxiliary propositions. As Sober explains in his article those auxiliary propositions need to be independently evidenced to avoid problems in logic. On the other hand, both mutation and NS have been examined closely enough to give us a fair bit of independent evidence from which to propose predictions.
Your restatement is not equivalent to Sober's.
"But of course, I already agree with the ID side of things."
The bias is obvious.
440
posted on
03/19/2007 10:36:41 AM PDT
by
b_sharp
(evolution is not, generally speaking, a global optimizer, but a general satisficer -J. Wilkins)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420, 421-440, 441-460 ... 641-649 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson