76
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Briancrc
 
  3  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2015 10:06 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Scientists from Japan, India, Taiwan, China, and elsewhere are licking their chops in the hopes that creationists dumb down science education in the US to the point that they can swoop in and take all the jobs in science, math, and technology.
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2015 10:15 am
@Briancrc,
you can always stoop to Quahog's intellect. He, of course, can never rise to meet yours. So any trying logic or evidence on him is falling on deaf and "intellectually challenged" ears.

Hes of English heritage but he still cannot write in his mother tongue.

-
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2015 01:34 pm
@Briancrc,
Quote:
Scientists from Japan, India, Taiwan, China, and elsewhere are licking their chops in the hopes that creationists dumb down science education in the US to the point that they can swoop in and take all the jobs in science, math, and technology.


But why? science education is already dumbed down and here for dumbing down.


Please do some research!
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2015 01:36 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Whats pathetic is that you are clueless. An you wish to have me believe that you are educated?

Hows that workin for you?


lol

Just your stupid ad hominems again. Not worthy of anything,

Yawnnnn
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2015 01:37 pm
@Briancrc,
Quote:
Good for you! Congratulations! Keep fight he good fight.


fight?

hmmmmmmmm I smell a rat! lol
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2015 02:43 pm
@Briancrc,
Quote:
Scientists from Japan, India, Taiwan, China, and elsewhere are licking their chops in the hopes that creationists dumb down science education in the US to the point that they can swoop in and take all the jobs in science, math, and technology.
And I thought McCarthy was an over the top witch hunter.
0 Replies
 
Briancrc
 
  3  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2015 03:56 pm
@farmerman,
Cornholiomath's intellect aside, the strategy used by the disciples of creationist/ID is to respond ad nauseum with "show me the evidence". It reminds me of the interview Dawkins conducted with Wendy Wright. He must have asked her a dozen times why she wouldn't go look at the evidence he was referring her to. But as we know, for the creationist/IDers, this issue is not about the evidence . These are theological/philosophical/political issues for these folks. They couldn't care less if our children grow up scientifically illiterate (that might not be entirely true. It might actually be their preference)
Quehoniaomath
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2015 03:59 pm
@Briancrc,
Quote:
Cornholiomath's intellect aside, the strategy used by the disciples of creationist/ID is to respond ad nauseum with "show me the evidence". It reminds me of the interview Dawkins conducted with Wendy Wright. He must have asked her a dozen times why she wouldn't go look at the evidence he was referring her to. But as we know, this issue is not about the evidence for the creationist/IDers. This is theological/philosophical/political issues for these folks. They couldn't care less if our children grow up scientifically illiterate.


Is this your rationalisation. because there is no evidence mate
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2015 04:59 pm
@Briancrc,
You have pointed at a fact that is presented here almost continuosly.

There have been some really good "scholars" of Creation/ID, Quahog just aint one of em.

Quehoniaomath
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 14 Nov, 2015 05:11 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
You have pointed at a fact that is presented here almost continuosly.

There have been some really good "scholars" of Creation/ID, Quahog just aint one of em.


lol, I am saying that for years here!

Catching up, girly?

lol
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2015 07:22 am
Been following the ENCODE project for some time and found the following comments from IDers interesting.

Quote:
Some of these biologists are now exploring what they call "post-Darwinian" models of evolution, often adopting the same critiques of Darwinism that ID proponents offer. They still seek unguided material evolutionary explanations of life and are resistant to design. But that resistance is weakening. Indeed, widespread fears about aiding intelligent design show that many biologists understand how ENCODE's results represent a major breakthrough for ID. As William Dembski eloquently put it some 14 years pre-ENCODE:

"Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. ... Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it."

Another pesky random thought. The really 'pure' Darwinians insist that only 3 to 5% of DNA is useful and the rest is junk. Since there are presumably about 3 billion 'bits' total in DNA, that would make only around 100 million bits available for the instructions for how to build a human being. Pretty good trick. That's only enough to encode about 30 songs on my ipad using MP3 compression. Even if they are wrong and all the DNA is needed, the compression required to put all that in 3 billion bits is a monumental design achievement.

Let's see, Microsoft Windows operating system is how many GIGA bytes?
farmerman
 
  6  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2015 09:15 am
@Leadfoot,
SCience does not say that the vast majority of DNA is "junk". Thats the neat thing about science, it doesnt stand still . Science hqs discovered that, of all DNA in an organism, only about 5% CODES for proteins. The rest codes for other things (like the somatic cells that serve as the receptacles for chemical mini-factoriies.

SO the "junk" appellation is about 25 years past its last" valid"
use.

Quote:
The really 'pure' Darwinians insist that only 3 to 5% of DNA is useful and the rest is junk.
So stop making up stuff



Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2015 12:36 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Thats the neat thing about science, it doesnt stand still


Well, that's true in a way! It IS going b ackwards of course! There is no other way for this religion called 'science' .


Unbelievable dogmatic this farmergirly is.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2015 12:40 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
once again we hear from fact-free Quahog.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2015 12:45 pm
@farmerman,
Now you stop pretending that all Darwinians hold the same view and switch to the new paradigm simultaneously. I was just recently reading a Darwinist criticism of the ENCODE project's conclusion that most of DNA was functional. I'll see if I can dig it up.

But in any case, I guess the Darwinists will have to give up the argument that junk DNA is proof that there was no intelligent designer.

I think the last believer in the 'steady state universe' only recently let go of that view in spite of Hubble killing that myth almost 100 years ago.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2015 12:50 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Didja ever notice that when quahog wants to demean saomeone who's obviously male he uses female pronouns and slighting terms(girly) for women? Which Indicts him as a sexist pig.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2015 12:53 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
That's not an ad hominem. It's an ad feminae, quahog.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2015 02:47 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Didja ever notice that when quahog wants to demean saomeone who's obviously male he uses female pronouns and slighting terms(girly) for women? Which Indicts him as a sexist pig.


Good observation..............................................girly!


lol
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2015 03:29 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Still stuck in the stone age mentally, I see.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2015 03:53 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Now you stop pretending that all Darwinians hold the same view and switch to the new paradigm simultaneously. I was just recently reading a Darwinist criticism of the ENCODE project's conclusion that most of DNA was functional. I'll see if I can dig it up.

But in any case, I guess the Darwinists will have to give up the argument that junk DNA is proof that there was no intelligent designer.

I think the last believer in the 'steady state universe' only recently let go of that view in spite of Hubble killing that myth almost 100 years ago.


Do you actually know any people who call themselves Darwinian or Darwinists?

(It is like calling all Native Americans, Geronimo.)
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 06/17/2019 at 06:52:41