You seem to be confusing Intelligent Design with Creationism. The idea of Intelligent Design is (to state it briefly) that it goes against nature to say that evolved from a chemical soup to a human, much like an archeologist can prove that the arrowhead he found was made by humans, not by nature. You can falsify it by proving abiogenesis and evolution. Hence, it is science.
Now, a lot of the proponents of Intelligent Design don't even know what it is, only that it supports their worldview (much like many atheists don't know what evolution and abiogenesis are).
And I will also take the time to point out that something that has always existed (eg the Intelligent Designer) need not have been created/have a cause, whereas us non-eternal people do.
For something to have no cause, it cannot have been created. Ie, it has always existed. We can say that about god, but not about our universe, which is estimated to be about 20 billion years old (plus, there is entropy).
Wrong. The Intelligent Designer neen not have been created. However, the universe we live in is finite in time, hence we need to explain how we came about.
*Grows tired of explaining what Intelligent Design is* Intelligent Design is kind of like archeology, except that Occam's Razor is less forgiving. You can falsify it by proving abiogenesis and evolution, or that thoso are at least possible*.
*Note that possible is approximately 1 chance in 10^50 or 10^300.
If there were a lot of different natural laws, or a slightly different unfolding in the first few seconds of the universe or something, other creatures would live there and say "wow, it looks like this universe was tailor made for us".
Please take the time to educate yourself. You can't make creatures out of hydrogen and helium, or out of plasma, or out of space. It is a miracle* that we have planets at all.
*Impossible is usually defined as 10^-50 or 10^-300, and the amount of fine-tuning to be able to have complex molecules falls right about there. Sure, there could be other universes, but they must necessarily be unobservable.
Agreed. Intelligent design would merit nothing more than a very short mention, if at all, in a discussion about theism, if it were in a philosophy class.
Intelligent Design does deserve mention in science class, as it is a valid science (if you think otherwise, please take the time to educate yourself). Even if it was proven wrong, it at least deserves mention.
You are attaking a straw man. Nobody but morons believe that things that are not fit to live will live anyways. The claim that abiogenesis is mostly random is much more defensible (please don't confuse evolution and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis says soup to amoeba and has less evidence, while evolution says amoeba to human). Anyhow Intelligent Design is perfectly scientific. You seem to hold that evolution and abiogenesis are both proven, and hence Intelligent Design is proven false. If so, you must be accepting this because you believe in authoritative scientists, or are very much smarter than I. My guess is that you don't even know what abiogenesis means.
Intelligent Design, as I have heard it explained by fellow scientists, is as much science as archeology. Basically, they need to prove that it is impossible for us to have arisen naturally from a chemical soup, a task which may well prove impossible. To falsify it, we need to prove evolution and abiogenesis, or that they are at least feasable. Thus, it is science.
As for your comment about Intelligent Design being a good philosophy -- did anyone ever tell you what sort of philosophy evolution is? Needless to say, I would much rather you pull your morals out of the Bible than out of a biology textbook.
Quit setting up a straw man. Intelligent Design says that the idea that chemical soup naturally turned into life is so unlikely that life must have been designed by an intelligent designer, rather in the same way an archeologist would argue that his artifact was made by an intelligent designer (a human). Yea, they make use of Occam's Razor. As a side note, Intelligent Design is pretty much impossible to prove true, but you can prove it false by showing that evolution and abiogenesis are true or possible.
Methinks you are confusing Creationism with Intelligent Design. Or purpousely creating a straw man? "God made it look that way" is a far cry from "this couldn't have arisn by chance, so it must have been done by an intelligent being". Next you'll be telling archeologists that their artifacts are infact, the result of natural processes since they can't prove that they were made by intelligent creatures.
I won't do any namecalling myself, but will do something suggestive of it. Now reread your statement and apply it to what you said:-). Meanwhile, I'll be laughing at you and the mod who thought you were being insightful.
Just because you don't know what intelligent design is and that it is mostly championed by folks with a religious agenda doesn't mean it is not good science. I don't see you complaining to archeologists about how can they be sure that the artifacts they find weren't created by natural processes instead of humans. Sure, a living cell is not the same as an arrowhead, but if they can show that it is impossible for chemical soup to turn into a living cell they will have proven their point. Not that that will be an easy task... but it is doable. You can also disprove intelligent design by showing it is likely that chemical soup turned into life.
Well, if we want to talk Old Testament, sodomy==death sentence, murder==death sentence (is abortion murder?), and adultery==death sentence. As for war, killing is not condemned in the old testament (since killing is not murder). Now Jesus intervened in the case of an adulterous woman, and teaches "love your neighbor as yourself". In conclusion, it is a very confused issue and there are lots of opinions.
Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. Intelligent Design is not a science in any sense, but a theology, and as such, its place is in the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever, not in the classroom.
Look, I can make a silly statement too! Evolution is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. First prove that the things you say evolved actually exist...
Proving that something was made by an intelligent creature is actually not very difficult. If you find a perfect cube of gold, you would be forced to conclude that it was made by an intelligent creature, most likely a human, if it was found on earth. Of course, it could have just solidified into that shape by chance, but that is so incredibly unlikely that you would be laughed at for suggesting it.
Now a cube of gold is very simple, but it goes against nature -- gold doesn't crystalize into cubes nor is there a natural process that forms soft metals into cubes. Now a living cell is a lot more complicated than a cube of gold. But the real question is to what degree do you need to go against nature to turn chemical soup into a living cell? If Intelligent Design theorists can show that, beyond reasonable doubt, it is unnatural for chemical soup to turn into a living cell, they will have proven their point. Likewise if they can show that some feature we have could not have evolved naturally. This is a very hard task and I doubt they can do it, but it is science. I'm not saying that this won't be abused by religious nuts, but it does have science behind it. You can usually tell which are the religious nuts by whether or not they "know" who the intelligent designer is.
Re:OT: where'd all the 4/5 comments go?
on
Xbox 360 for $300
·
· Score: 1
I'm just talking out of my ass here, but I suspect the difference is between the default bonuses and your own preferences.
I think that DDoS attacks are a very bad idea, both for the infrastructure of the internet, for innocent bystanders, and for the slippery slope it is. A better solution would be to replace email with something reasonable. For example, digitally sign your email address (public key on the email server) to ensure that it is from you. Another thing is have the sender do a puzzle/calculation, say 10 - 100 ms per email (subject to a whitelist), else the message gets dropped.
Among the words he says are weasel words are: Ovenable, Email, Killer application, Opinionnaire, Ramp up, With all due respect. While some of these are obviously not words, their meaning is clear. Anyhow, people can invent words if they feal like it. I was particularly surprised that he insists that you say sending an email message instead of sending an email. As for "with all due respect", that is usually said prior to telling something to someone with all the respect he deserves:-). Although I would agree that obfuscating speach for any reason, including not offending people, is never justified.
From TFA: Sexy '. I'm fine with it in the right context. But since when could a mobile phone be described as sexy? Their appearance never sends my mind into a high-value sexual arousal state. Unless part of their functionality is to impact on sexual arousal state I cannot see how phones can be called sexy.'
Apparently, this guy doesn't know that most cellphones can be set to vibrate!
Like how water crystallizes into an ordered shape when it freezes, or did I misunderstand your statement?
Nah, you just forgot to read the next sentence where I said that some driving force using energy was needed to do the organizing. Freezing water will increase thermal enthropy (ie, waste energy) in exchange for increasing order.
I can think of [a mutation that comes up with new, useful information] right off the top of my head: if women get the right combination of genetic information, they can have four types of cones in their eyes instead of three.
No, you can't. Because it has not been reported in every single scientific journal, or any at all, for that matter. I can assure you, that scientists will make a lot of noise if they discover such a mutation. Now, about the specific "mutation" you mentioned, if women get the right combination of genetic information doesn't sound like a mutation. Anyhow if I misunderstood that, a link would be helpful.
I'm sure you would be surprised to learn that penicillin is produced by a fungus. Last I checked, fungi grow in the wild. It might also interest you to know that unless bacteria get suddenly exposed to very high doses of penicillin, wasting too many resources in being resistant to it will be a disadvantage, so that resistant strains would not occur before penicillin was used as medicine.
A creationist can dispel any arguments about evolution based on similarity of species simply by similarities, they were all designed by the same creator.
Maybe. However, I think that several similar bits of DNA with apparently random changes (ie not at all affecting the resulting organism) throughout the species would prove evolution.
All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation.
Almost all mutations that survive are benefitial mutations. Blind cave fish, bacteria unable to control the production of antipenicillin, slight changes to the protein coat of viruses, etc are benefitial mutations. I am, however, aware thath these are all destructive mutations, and none of them can account for macroevolution.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be confusing Intelligent Design with Creationism. The idea of Intelligent Design is (to state it briefly) that it goes against nature to say that evolved from a chemical soup to a human, much like an archeologist can prove that the arrowhead he found was made by humans, not by nature. You can falsify it by proving abiogenesis and evolution. Hence, it is science.
Now, a lot of the proponents of Intelligent Design don't even know what it is, only that it supports their worldview (much like many atheists don't know what evolution and abiogenesis are).
And I will also take the time to point out that something that has always existed (eg the Intelligent Designer) need not have been created/have a cause, whereas us non-eternal people do.
For something to have no cause, it cannot have been created. Ie, it has always existed. We can say that about god, but not about our universe, which is estimated to be about 20 billion years old (plus, there is entropy).
Wrong. The Intelligent Designer neen not have been created. However, the universe we live in is finite in time, hence we need to explain how we came about.
*Grows tired of explaining what Intelligent Design is* Intelligent Design is kind of like archeology, except that Occam's Razor is less forgiving. You can falsify it by proving abiogenesis and evolution, or that thoso are at least possible*.
*Note that possible is approximately 1 chance in 10^50 or 10^300.
If there were a lot of different natural laws, or a slightly different unfolding in the first few seconds of the universe or something, other creatures would live there and say "wow, it looks like this universe was tailor made for us".
Please take the time to educate yourself. You can't make creatures out of hydrogen and helium, or out of plasma, or out of space. It is a miracle* that we have planets at all.
*Impossible is usually defined as 10^-50 or 10^-300, and the amount of fine-tuning to be able to have complex molecules falls right about there. Sure, there could be other universes, but they must necessarily be unobservable.
Agreed. Intelligent design would merit nothing more than a very short mention, if at all, in a discussion about theism, if it were in a philosophy class.
Intelligent Design does deserve mention in science class, as it is a valid science (if you think otherwise, please take the time to educate yourself). Even if it was proven wrong, it at least deserves mention.
You are attaking a straw man. Nobody but morons believe that things that are not fit to live will live anyways. The claim that abiogenesis is mostly random is much more defensible (please don't confuse evolution and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis says soup to amoeba and has less evidence, while evolution says amoeba to human). Anyhow Intelligent Design is perfectly scientific. You seem to hold that evolution and abiogenesis are both proven, and hence Intelligent Design is proven false. If so, you must be accepting this because you believe in authoritative scientists, or are very much smarter than I. My guess is that you don't even know what abiogenesis means.
Intelligent Design, as I have heard it explained by fellow scientists, is as much science as archeology. Basically, they need to prove that it is impossible for us to have arisen naturally from a chemical soup, a task which may well prove impossible. To falsify it, we need to prove evolution and abiogenesis, or that they are at least feasable. Thus, it is science.
As for your comment about Intelligent Design being a good philosophy -- did anyone ever tell you what sort of philosophy evolution is? Needless to say, I would much rather you pull your morals out of the Bible than out of a biology textbook.
Quit setting up a straw man. Intelligent Design says that the idea that chemical soup naturally turned into life is so unlikely that life must have been designed by an intelligent designer, rather in the same way an archeologist would argue that his artifact was made by an intelligent designer (a human). Yea, they make use of Occam's Razor. As a side note, Intelligent Design is pretty much impossible to prove true, but you can prove it false by showing that evolution and abiogenesis are true or possible.
Methinks you are confusing Creationism with Intelligent Design. Or purpousely creating a straw man? "God made it look that way" is a far cry from "this couldn't have arisn by chance, so it must have been done by an intelligent being". Next you'll be telling archeologists that their artifacts are infact, the result of natural processes since they can't prove that they were made by intelligent creatures.
I won't do any namecalling myself, but will do something suggestive of it. Now reread your statement and apply it to what you said :-). Meanwhile, I'll be laughing at you and the mod who thought you were being insightful.
Just because you don't know what intelligent design is and that it is mostly championed by folks with a religious agenda doesn't mean it is not good science. I don't see you complaining to archeologists about how can they be sure that the artifacts they find weren't created by natural processes instead of humans. Sure, a living cell is not the same as an arrowhead, but if they can show that it is impossible for chemical soup to turn into a living cell they will have proven their point. Not that that will be an easy task... but it is doable. You can also disprove intelligent design by showing it is likely that chemical soup turned into life.
Well, if we want to talk Old Testament, sodomy==death sentence, murder==death sentence (is abortion murder?), and adultery==death sentence. As for war, killing is not condemned in the old testament (since killing is not murder). Now Jesus intervened in the case of an adulterous woman, and teaches "love your neighbor as yourself". In conclusion, it is a very confused issue and there are lots of opinions.
Do the Darwinists get equal time in the churches as well?
Sure... Oh, wait. How much of the church's funding did you say you provide?
Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. Intelligent Design is not a science in any sense, but a theology, and as such, its place is in the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever, not in the classroom.
Look, I can make a silly statement too! Evolution is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. First prove that the things you say evolved actually exist...
Proving that something was made by an intelligent creature is actually not very difficult. If you find a perfect cube of gold, you would be forced to conclude that it was made by an intelligent creature, most likely a human, if it was found on earth. Of course, it could have just solidified into that shape by chance, but that is so incredibly unlikely that you would be laughed at for suggesting it.
Now a cube of gold is very simple, but it goes against nature -- gold doesn't crystalize into cubes nor is there a natural process that forms soft metals into cubes. Now a living cell is a lot more complicated than a cube of gold. But the real question is to what degree do you need to go against nature to turn chemical soup into a living cell? If Intelligent Design theorists can show that, beyond reasonable doubt, it is unnatural for chemical soup to turn into a living cell, they will have proven their point. Likewise if they can show that some feature we have could not have evolved naturally. This is a very hard task and I doubt they can do it, but it is science. I'm not saying that this won't be abused by religious nuts, but it does have science behind it. You can usually tell which are the religious nuts by whether or not they "know" who the intelligent designer is.
I'm just talking out of my ass here, but I suspect the difference is between the default bonuses and your own preferences.
I wonder how many people told him to go get a life?
Said a superviser about people typing: I feel like a radioactive material surrounded by Geiger counters. The closer I get, the faster they click!
I think that DDoS attacks are a very bad idea, both for the infrastructure of the internet, for innocent bystanders, and for the slippery slope it is. A better solution would be to replace email with something reasonable. For example, digitally sign your email address (public key on the email server) to ensure that it is from you. Another thing is have the sender do a puzzle/calculation, say 10 - 100 ms per email (subject to a whitelist), else the message gets dropped.
Among the words he says are weasel words are: Ovenable, Email, Killer application, Opinionnaire, Ramp up, With all due respect. While some of these are obviously not words, their meaning is clear. Anyhow, people can invent words if they feal like it. I was particularly surprised that he insists that you say sending an email message instead of sending an email. As for "with all due respect", that is usually said prior to telling something to someone with all the respect he deserves :-). Although I would agree that obfuscating speach for any reason, including not offending people, is never justified.
From TFA: Sexy '. I'm fine with it in the right context. But since when could a mobile phone be described as sexy? Their appearance never sends my mind into a high-value sexual arousal state. Unless part of their functionality is to impact on sexual arousal state I cannot see how phones can be called sexy.'
Apparently, this guy doesn't know that most cellphones can be set to vibrate!
And I think that you should read the sentence directly after the one you quote.
Like how water crystallizes into an ordered shape when it freezes, or did I misunderstand your statement?
Nah, you just forgot to read the next sentence where I said that some driving force using energy was needed to do the organizing. Freezing water will increase thermal enthropy (ie, waste energy) in exchange for increasing order.
I can think of [a mutation that comes up with new, useful information] right off the top of my head: if women get the right combination of genetic information, they can have four types of cones in their eyes instead of three.
No, you can't. Because it has not been reported in every single scientific journal, or any at all, for that matter. I can assure you, that scientists will make a lot of noise if they discover such a mutation. Now, about the specific "mutation" you mentioned, if women get the right combination of genetic information doesn't sound like a mutation. Anyhow if I misunderstood that, a link would be helpful.
I'm sure you would be surprised to learn that penicillin is produced by a fungus. Last I checked, fungi grow in the wild. It might also interest you to know that unless bacteria get suddenly exposed to very high doses of penicillin, wasting too many resources in being resistant to it will be a disadvantage, so that resistant strains would not occur before penicillin was used as medicine.
A creationist can dispel any arguments about evolution based on similarity of species simply by similarities, they were all designed by the same creator.
Maybe. However, I think that several similar bits of DNA with apparently random changes (ie not at all affecting the resulting organism) throughout the species would prove evolution.
All experiments to this day to cause mutations have failed to produce a single beneficial mutation.
Almost all mutations that survive are benefitial mutations. Blind cave fish, bacteria unable to control the production of antipenicillin, slight changes to the protein coat of viruses, etc are benefitial mutations. I am, however, aware thath these are all destructive mutations, and none of them can account for macroevolution.