Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

spendius wrote:

Gee ros-

You can detect garbage from-

Quote:
I saw earlier a Promenade Concert

No. I can detect garbage when I see a post by spendius. Your name has become synonymous with garbage.

(hey, this is fun) Smile

0 Replies

I am garbage. Have you not seen my pre-first-post (I hate last posts) member profile? I come from a very long line of garbage.Have you never studied the historical record and the route by which you arrived?

I presume you are the "bee knees" ros. I don't fancy that.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
The evolutionary synthesis is not in any kind of disarray

And that was my point when I said there were no weaknesses in the theory.

Just because we lack detail in certain areas does not imply weakness in the basic theory. Quite the contrary, we have lacked detail since Darwin published the idea, and in every case when we have found the details, they have strengthened the basic theory.

Genetics is the best example. Evolution predicted that organisms passed on their traits, but how? A genetic function of some type was predicted by the theory, and later confirmed (in excruciating detail).

Oh please, Ros. I'm gonna laugh til I cry here.

Any daddy and momma who've had a couple of munchkins that grew up to look exactly like daddy could have told you that traits are passed on from one generation to the next.

Evolution DID NOT predict that. Don't be so silly.

Mankind has observed and known that for thousands of years. Laughing

What evolution actually predicted was the opposite --- that organisms did NOT pass on all of their traits but occasionally passed on, (not only simple 'traits', but also)

whole new organs
systems
chemical processes hitherto unknown and
complete new body plans

to their offspring resulting in a completely different youngun than it's forebearers.

And that is exactly what you have tried to deny because you've been unable to prove it.

(Yes, I know that you postulate it as a process over many generations, etc it still isn't even close to being proven that one organism can change into another at ANY point. Because no matter how you slice it, at some point organism "A" must beget an organism "B" , right? )

Are humans evolving ANY new organs or systems now?

How about cats? Any half organs or systems evolving in the cat population?

Dogs?

Bears?

Horses?

Rodents?

Fish?

Birds?

Any half evolved organs or systems apparent in any of these today?

Yeah, you're lacking 'detail' all right. Such as any real proof that what you're talking about is occurring.

You assume the result and leave out the middle. "we KNOW evolution happens, we just don't know how" Laughing

0 Replies

rl wrote:

at some point organism "A" must beget an organism "B" , right?

Wrong. Your hypothesis proceeds from a premise not only invalid, but ignorant beyond the point of absurdity. As has been explained numerous times (and offered this time with no expectation of improved result), evolution does not work like a scene cut, but more like a scene fade; there is no point at which "A" suddenly and discernably "Begets B". The descendants of population "A", responding to whatever stimulii as render "B-likeness" more beneficial to survival and reproduction, over time become, by imperceptable degrees, more and more "B-like" until such point as a population exclusively of "B" predominates. At what point does a seedling become a tree, or a trickle a river?

0 Replies

Quote:

Oh please, Ros. I'm gonna laugh til I cry here.

Any daddy and momma who've had a couple of munchkins that grew up to look exactly like daddy could have told you that traits are passed on from one generation to the next.

Evolution DID NOT predict that. Don't be so silly

Actually it predicted something more.

Not all traits (phenotypes) are passed on. Science predicted that traits are a result of alleles (and their interactions). Not all alleles are passed on to an offspring and not all offspring show the same phenotype as their parents. Evolution predicted that the distribution and frequency of these alleles are subject to change. There's also mutations of genes. I'm not sure when genetic mutation is introduced in evolution, but it is now a part of its theory.

0 Replies

Quote:

Are humans evolving ANY new organs or systems now?

How about cats? Any half organs or systems evolving in the cat population?

AS Ken Miler always said, evolution is taking whats already there and doing something new with it.

The species of clouded leopard is , once again, apparently evolving "sabre toothness" does that qualify?
The fact that so many variable niches have so many specially adapted species that dont exist anywhere else in space or time is a good record of "adaptive radiation"

If it were Creationist "theory", all these animals would have been created at once and just waited for the niche to appear.
Thats reasonable science

not.

0 Replies

RL wrote-

Quote:

You assume the result and leave out the middle. "we KNOW evolution happens, we just don't know how"

I suggested a process for them to consider a few months ago but they never gave it a glance, possibly for personal reasons. It was "spendi garbage" as usual but it is easy to see the simple aspects of the process in action in the pub on any busy night.

"If music be the food of love".

What does evolution theory have to say about the difference between music styles (and art generally) around the globe. There are major differences between music styles going from north to south and from east to west even within Europe and within the UK which are presumably based on the climate and topography differences.

Further to that one has to consider that differences between human beings from any areas of the world are mainly superficial and exterior.

It seems to me that Darwinian evolutionary theory is attractive to certain types of mind precisely because it is simple and lends itself to an esoteric language through which the simplicity can be disguised and presented as a high status intellectual specialisation and used as a power play. The type of mind which grasps this simplicity and elaborates it for personal reasons is one that is repelled by inexplicable mystery and must have an explanation which satisfies it. A simple one for preference. That is bound to be the result of a particular type of socialisation otherwise brain surgeons would need to use different surgical techniques on Creationists than they would on non-Creationists.

As they don't it is safe to assume that the brains of both are the same physiologically and the differences are in how they have been programmed.

If "social consequences" are irrelevant the argument boils down to separate claims that "my brain has been programmed better than yours."

But, of course, "social consequences" are of the highest importance and thus each side has a duty to explain what they will be if their ideas are followed in a national education system and subsequently in the social actions which result. On that issue religionists can point to hundreds of years of progress to where we are now and secular materialism is into pure guesswork and flying by the seat of its pants which is why no attempt has been offered from anti-IDers to describe a world in which their views prevail despite many films and books etc which have attempted it and which can be summed up in Munch's famous painting.

An anti-IDer preaching in a religion-toned world is a very different prospect from an anti-IDer in an anti-ID world where he would no longer have anything to say and would have nothing to use to make himself stand out from the lonely crowd. One might predict that it wouldn't take long for a mind programmed to stand out from the crowd to start, in an anti-ID world, preaching ID. As that is ridiculous it would be necessary to avoid programming the need to stand out from the crowd and then Huxley's alpha, beta, gamma conditionings would come into being but in a much more comprehensive manner than he dared describe and which would eradicate human initiative and ambition.

The anti-IDer is trying to talk his own role out of existence although he probably has a fond belief that he would be an alpha plus in such a system which ,from what I've seen, is highly unlikely.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

"If music be the food of love".

What does evolution theory have to say about the difference between music styles (and art generally) around the globe.

Absolutely nothing, because the Theory of Evolution concerns species only. Oh, don't get me wrong. People love to apply the Theory of Evolution to things that don't actually deserve it, but that means nothing.

People apply all sorts of things to unrelated concepts all the time, like gravity to love and stupidity to black holes, but so what?

Quote:

The type of mind which grasps this simplicity and elaborates it for personal reasons is one that is repelled by inexplicable mystery and must have an explanation which satisfies it. A simple one for preference.

It's far more complicated than you would think, spendi. More complicated than, God did it.

Quote:

no attempt has been offered from anti-IDers to describe a world in which their views prevail despite many films and books etc which have attempted it and which can be summed up in Munch's famous painting.

Rubbish. You patently ignored my statement, where I said we'd have better scientists.

You have constantly failed to show us why ID would help save the world from a technological dystopia. I have listed many attributes of ID, none of which would do anything you claim it would. Yet you refused to even refute it.

You have constantly failed to prove that ID is good science, that it is good social science and that it teaches anything that would help prevent the moral decay of our country/world.

All you do is spout irrelevant analogies, go on baseless rants filled with nothing but assertions, and then complain that we don't see things from your point of view, when you provide no proof to bolster your views. You then go on sarcastic little assertions, insults and if someone points out your behaviour, you deny it and everything they accuse you of doing or being.

I myself have constantly reposted the link to that research paper which showed no correlation between a decline in societal health and secularism, which I will do again.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Based on the findings of the study, we can state that anti-ID and secularism is not responsible for a decline in morality, and that the reverse is true.

0 Replies

Wolf-

I've never said anything about moral decline. I am testing out the ideas of others on that. I don't know what moral decline means. I'm in favour of a different woman everynight and a law which penalises establishing relationships outlasting the night. Are you, which you ought to be as an anti-IDer? I'm in favour of the gammas being happy as gammas by conditioning them to be so. I'm in favour of government handing out happy pills and us all having nothing to do but tickle our pleasure centres.
I'm in favour of looking and feeling 25 until I'm 80 and then turning into real 80 in a week and carking it under sedation. I'm in favour of new people just arriving out of a machine without all the botheration we have now.

Assuming it works of course.

Quote:

It's far more complicated than you would think, spendi. More complicated than, God did it.

Quite the contrary. There's nothing complicated or complex about evolution theory. It's a piece of cake and, as I said, that is its main attraction.

Quote:

All you do is spout irrelevant analogies, go on baseless rants filled with nothing but assertions, and then complain that we don't see things from your point of view, when you provide no proof to bolster your views. You then go on sarcastic little assertions, insults and if someone points out your behaviour, you deny it and everything they accuse you of doing or being.

Why don't you ignore me in that case. I ignore people who are as bad as you make me out to be.

I have better things to do than read that link of yours. I've read bits of it and seen nothing I don't already know about. I can tell from the style that there is little useful content. You may base what conclusion you wish on it but don't expect me to.

You're too young Wolf. I wish I was.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Why don't you ignore me in that case. I ignore people who are as bad as you make me out to be.

Now that we've got that established, you know now the reason as to why people ignore you and your assertions as best as possible.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Absolutely nothing, because the Theory of Evolution concerns species only. Oh, don't get me wrong. People love to apply the Theory of Evolution to things that don't actually deserve it, but that means nothing.

Ros wanted to apply it to dead chemicals to produce a living organism, to justify abiogenesis.

What is your take on that?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Are humans evolving ANY new organs or systems now?

How about cats? Any half organs or systems evolving in the cat population?

AS Ken Miler always said, evolution is taking whats already there and doing something new with it.

The species of clouded leopard is , once again, apparently evolving "sabre toothness" does that qualify?

Not really. It is , as you said, taking 'what is already there'.

A re-emerging trait that was lost ( a trait being lost is, of course, fully consistent with entropy while the development of new organs and systems by the addition of genetic information is not) doesn't really seem to be the evolution of anything new, does it?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

rl wrote:
at some point organism "A" must beget an organism "B" , right?

Wrong. Your hypothesis proceeds from a premise not only invalid, but ignorant beyond the point of absurdity. As has been explained numerous times (and offered this time with no expectation of improved result), evolution does not work like a scene cut, but more like a scene fade; there is no point at which "A" suddenly and discernably "Begets B". The descendants of population "A", responding to whatever stimulii as render "B-likeness" more beneficial to survival and reproduction, over time become, by imperceptable degrees, more and more "B-like" until such point as a population exclusively of "B" predominates. At what point does a seedling become a tree, or a trickle a river?

I didn't say it was discernable, timber.

We've been through this point before, and you eventually understood it and conceded it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Oh please, Ros. I'm gonna laugh til I cry here.

Sorry about that RL, your posts just make me laugh. This misconception of evolution which you have is so silly it's almost an artwork of inanity.

real life wrote:

(Yes, I know that you postulate it as a process over many generations, etc it still isn't even close to being proven that one organism can change into another at ANY point. Because no matter how you slice it, at some point organism "A" must beget an organism "B" , right? )

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider proof of evolution?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

We've been through this point before, and you eventually understood it and conceded it.

An unlikely happenstance - care to demonstrate that your assertion in such regard be not the product of overwrought and underequipped imagination?

0 Replies

RL, Darwin spent about 6 years just studying the differences between and among species and families barnacles that make up the class cirripedia , members of the Crustacean subphylum. He wondered about the origins of the many variations and developed a primitive yet fairly accurate tree (wed call it a cladogram today). Yet he never included any of it in the "Origin..."

It demonstrated the base by which the development and common ancestry issue of evolution was derived even without a then understanding of genetics.It requires some work and study that your rather flippant responses fail to acknowledge.

Quote:

A re-emerging trait that was lost ( a trait being lost is, of course, fully consistent with entropy while the development of new organs and systems by the addition of genetic information is not)

explain what you mean here? a "re-emergent trait" from a series of totally different and now extinct species says much more than you seem to recognize. How does entropy fit in here?

0 Replies

That's a classic example of why fm needs rl.

rl's posts give him an excuse to glob that lot out. I'll tell you what fm- you explain why any of that matters except as a stage for you to prance on. Why is it of interest on this thread which is about the age old tension between religion and science. What you have there is pop-science anyway.Science for the masses type stuff. And Darwin left it bloody out.

He's really accomodating is rl. Comforting too. No hard questions to answer or avoid answering.

It's one of my rules. If an anti-IDer answers a point the point is not worth making.I like deathly silences to follow my utterances and the esteemed viewers to notice and they have had plenty of practice by now. Barrages of insult and assertion are a type of deathly silence only with gasp modulations.

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

.I like deathly silences to follow my utterances

Like fart in a Cathedral.

0 Replies

Yes fm. They do concentrate everybody's mind don't they.

In a cathedral one might easily have hundreds of thoughts in the heads of the congregation but a nice load fart at just the right time acts like a lens when you pass the sun's beautiful rays through it to ignite some dry grass.

I should think the Bishop might choose his drinking companions on the basis of reactions.

It's the silent ones that worry him most I should think seeing as how the average person in a Christian country farts 35 times per day which is why flowers are an important aspect of cathedral dressing in posh areas. He wouldn't wish to have a congregation of anal retentives would he bearing in mind the general character traits those are supposed to exhibit?

0 Replies

On reflection the juxta that fm chose for his wit of the profane and the sacred is a classic example of the historical religious pseudomorphosis. The profane aspect was easy to choose from experience but that he should choose such a mighty image of the sacred as a cathedral shows a vestigal sense of the sacred.

He could have chosen a wedding reception or a military funeral or a parliamentary moment.

One would expect someone though who has been through the hands of the Jesuits to have such an awe of the sacred as he has displayed. He thinks he can shake it off but he must have had a lowly set of Jesuits if he can.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know