Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?

[THE LIGHT]

Of course, if one wanted to really do some research into the possibilities of how life started, one could start here;

The Origin of Life

Even the simplest currently living cells contain hundreds of proteins most of which are essential to their functioning. Yet such complexity cannot have stood at the origin of life. Based on research in the field it is proposed here how, once a self-replicating genetic molecule existed, life might have started and gradual evolution of complexity was made possible – in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life. Conditions for synthesis of organic molecules on the early Earth are reviewed, and ‘gene-first’ and ‘metabolism-first’ models are discussed. While the origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars has been a puzzling problem for decades, recent findings provide plausible explanations.

You still haven't answered it. How did that self replicating genetic molecule come about?

 

[JBeukema]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=related]YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

I find the thread title is perfect for the question. Faith (a set of ideas that are beliefs) in ID requires faith - either faith in a God or faith in the possibility of a God.

One cannot prove or disprove God'sexistence so faith is all that is left. Believing in ID requires faith - 'I believe, therefore it is true'.

Seems rather obvious.

Seems rather obvious that you are willfully ignorant. Your willful ignorance shows your intentions behind objecting to the truth. It is because you hate the idea of a god that you willfully misinterpret true science and gladly accept the impossible lies of evolutionism.

You have it completely backwards. In ID one is not trying to prove that a god exists in order for Intelligent Design exist. Rather, Intelligent Design is a testable conjecture which if true implies that an Intelligent Designer is necessary. I don't have to find the watchmaker who made my watch to know that it was designed. I know that my watch was designed therefore there is a need for a designer. Whether I see, touch, smell or feel that designer is really irrelevant to the whole equation.

I find it ironic that you call me willfully ignorant when you clearly don't comprehend my comment.

Bottom line, ID requires a belief in a God. One cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, thus, ID is a non-falsifiable theory. Convenient. So, it's easy to believe in something that is based on a belief.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I find the thread title is perfect for the question. Faith (a set of ideas that are beliefs) in ID requires faith - either faith in a God or faith in the possibility of a God.

One cannot prove or disprove God'sexistence so faith is all that is left. Believing in ID requires faith - 'I believe, therefore it is true'.

Seems rather obvious.

Seems rather obvious that you are willfully ignorant. Your willful ignorance shows your intentions behind objecting to the truth. It is because you hate the idea of a god that you willfully misinterpret true science and gladly accept the impossible lies of evolutionism.

You have it completely backwards. In ID one is not trying to prove that a god exists in order for Intelligent Design exist. Rather, Intelligent Design is a testable conjecture which if true implies that an Intelligent Designer is necessary. I don't have to find the watchmaker who made my watch to know that it was designed. I know that my watch was designed therefore there is a need for a designer. Whether I see, touch, smell or feel that designer is really irrelevant to the whole equation.

I find it ironic that you call me willfully ignorant when you clearly don't comprehend my comment.

Bottom line, ID requires a belief in a God. One cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, thus, ID is a non-falsifiable theory. Convenient. So, it's easy to believe in something that is based on a belief.

Either

a) You didn't read my post

or

b) You read it and did just what I said. Willfully disregarded everything I said.

 

[Si modo]

Seems rather obvious that you are willfully ignorant. Your willful ignorance shows your intentions behind objecting to the truth. It is because you hate the idea of a god that you willfully misinterpret true science and gladly accept the impossible lies of evolutionism.

You have it completely backwards. In ID one is not trying to prove that a god exists in order for Intelligent Design exist. Rather, Intelligent Design is a testable conjecture which if true implies that an Intelligent Designer is necessary. I don't have to find the watchmaker who made my watch to know that it was designed. I know that my watch was designed therefore there is a need for a designer. Whether I see, touch, smell or feel that designer is really irrelevant to the whole equation.

I find it ironic that you call me willfully ignorant when you clearly don't comprehend my comment.

Bottom line, ID requires a belief in a God. One cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, thus, ID is a non-falsifiable theory. Convenient. So, it's easy to believe in something that is based on a belief.

Either

a) You didn't read my post

or

b) You read it and did just what I said. Willfully disregarded everything I said.

Ohhhhhhh. I just love false dichotomies!

 

[germanguy]

Do I believe in intelligent design ?

Ever read Douglas Adams "Last Chance to see" ?
The chapter about a bird called Kakapo ?

If this bird is an example of intelligent design, the designer was stoned.

But serious:

ID tries to combine science and belief, which does not match properly.

So, personally I think, that the Evolution as a model for explaining things is making more sense, everybody else can believe what he wants. In the very end we will see who was right.

(Imagine, after your death you are standing in front of a door with a sign "Sorry - Mormons, Jews and Kirk of Scotland only" - a fucking nightmare).

regards
ze germanguy

 

[THE LIGHT]

I find it ironic that you call me willfully ignorant when you clearly don't comprehend my comment.

Bottom line, ID requires a belief in a God. One cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, thus, ID is a non-falsifiable theory. Convenient. So, it's easy to believe in something that is based on a belief.

Either

a) You didn't read my post

or

b) You read it and did just what I said. Willfully disregarded everything I said.

Ohhhhhhh. I just love false dichotomies!

You dodge questions quite well.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Do I believe in intelligent design ?

Ever read Douglas Adams "Last Chance to see" ?
The chapter about a bird called Kakapo ?

If this bird is an example of intelligent design, the designer was stoned.

Because of one bird that you don't understand ID is not possible. Now that is science!

But serious:

ID tries to combine science and belief, which does not match properly.

Yeah, it is a bad thing to belive in science. Psuedo science like evolution is far better.

So, personally I think, that the Evolution as a model for explaining things is making more sense, everybody else can believe what he wants. In the very end we will see who was right.

Evolutionism doesn't explain how things get started. In fact those who "believe" in evolutionism have NO explanation for how life got started.

On the contrary, ID has an explanation for how life got started. And those who hold an ID viewpoint generally have a theory of evolution that explains things far better and more scientific.

Yes, we will see who was right. Unfortunately by that time it will be too late for the followers of the evolutionism cult.

(Imagine, after your death you are standing in front of a door with a sign "Sorry - Mormons, Jews and Kirk of Scotland only" - a fucking nightmare).

regards
ze germanguy

Wha? Are you trying to make some you hate God therefore ID is false point out of that?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I have this little test to see if someone is making an intelligent claim with support and substance, or is just spouting hot air: flip all of the parties and substances in the sentence, and see if the point changes. If it appears to still work and nothing else is changed, the original claim is useless. Let's try it out:

Seems rather obvious that I am willfully ignorant. My willful ignorance shows my intentions behind objecting to the truth. It is because I hate the idea of science that I willfully misinterpret God and gladly accept the impossible lies of the bible.

Another winner: completed unsupported and useless.

 

[Toro]

Somebody started talking to me yesterday about "Creation Science.". It took everything I had to not burst out laughing.

 

[Toro]

Re watchmaker analogy

Light

the problem with your analogy is that you can physically track down your watchmaker. You can fly to Switzerland and go to the watch factory and meet the employees who made your watch.

When you can take me to heaven and intoduce me to God then your analogy applies. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. However, until you can provide tangible and repeatable evidence of God, you are merely articulating a belief-system more akin to philosophy than science.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I have this little test to see if someone is making an intelligent claim with support and substance, or is just spouting hot air: flip all of the parties and substances in the sentence, and see if the point changes. If it appears to still work and nothing else is changed, the original claim is useless. Let's try it out:

Seems rather obvious that I am willfully ignorant. My willful ignorance shows my intentions behind objecting to the truth. It is because I hate the idea of science that I willfully misinterpret God and gladly accept the impossible lies of the bible.

Another winner: completed unsupported and useless.

I would appreciate if you DO NOT intentionally distort my posts. That is extremely dishonest. Must you really do that to prove that evolutionism is true?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

That had nothing to do with proving evolution to be true or not. That only proved your comments at the time, REGARDLESS of the topic, are completely useless. It's not misrepresenting your stance if I first state how and why I am about to flip words in your quote, and then highlight exactly which words I purposely change.

You speak of dishonesty in big red letters, which in fact you are the one claiming I'm attempting to prove evolution with a point that had absolutely nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

Playing the victim doesn't make you any smarter, nor does it discredit evolution. Sorry.

 

[JBeukema]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weu7Rh6dYrM]YouTube - Intelligent Design? - Neil deGrasse Tyson[/ame]

 

[germanguy]

Do I believe in intelligent design ?

Ever read Douglas Adams "Last Chance to see" ?
The chapter about a bird called Kakapo ?

If this bird is an example of intelligent design, the designer was stoned.

Because of one bird that you don't understand ID is not possible. Now that is science!

But serious:

ID tries to combine science and belief, which does not match properly.

Yeah, it is a bad thing to belive in science. Psuedo science like evolution is far better.

So, personally I think, that the Evolution as a model for explaining things is making more sense, everybody else can believe what he wants. In the very end we will see who was right.

Evolutionism doesn't explain how things get started. In fact those who "believe" in evolutionism have NO explanation for how life got started.

On the contrary, ID has an explanation for how life got started. And those who hold an ID viewpoint generally have a theory of evolution that explains things far better and more scientific.

Yes, we will see who was right. Unfortunately by that time it will be too late for the followers of the evolutionism cult.

(Imagine, after your death you are standing in front of a door with a sign "Sorry - Mormons, Jews and Kirk of Scotland only" - a fucking nightmare).

regards
ze germanguy

Wha? Are you trying to make some you hate God therefore ID is false point out of that?

I personally think, that if there is a god, he is beyond our comprehension. We ight get a glimpse, but this is all. But this is not the point.

Science is, more or less, statistics. If an object has fallen at a specific speed in a specific time a specific distance for many times, than you can start to make a law out of it.
Once this will not happen anymore, you are in deep shit.

Still, we are able via science to explain and understand a lot of things, but not all.

This is that. Science is profoundly human and secular.

The theory, that an almighty god (which already excludes non-monotheistic religions and animistic religions) has started the thing seems to me rather an idea to comfort, than anything else.

A universe simply being is a thing hard to stand.

So, therefore I do not believe in ID, I consider the theory of evolution more likely.

And no, I do not want to make a hate god, but I think the Almighty has a good sense of humor. And the face of all religious hypocrits, when they meet god is something I personally look forward.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[westwall]

001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.

001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
light from the darkness

Or, 15 billion or so years ago there was an enormous explosion that originated from a singularity the size of a proton. From that proton sized singularity all the matter in the universe erupted in one cataclysm, the matter that makes up the 400 billion or so stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, and all the matter in the rest of the 125 billion or so galaxies out there.

Seems to me BOTH explanations require an element of faith.

 

[jeffrockit]

Does not look like we need somebodys idea of a diety to explain the origin of life. And this is just one of the many possible paths.

By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”


Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.



Read More Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory | Wired Science | Wired.com

Where did these ingredients come from?

 

[Synthaholic]

Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?

 

[Foxfyre]

001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.

001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
light from the darkness

Or, 15 billion or so years ago there was an enormous explosion that originated from a singularity the size of a proton. From that proton sized singularity all the matter in the universe erupted in one cataclysm, the matter that makes up the 400 billion or so stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, and all the matter in the rest of the 125 billion or so galaxies out there.

Seems to me BOTH explanations require an element of faith.

Well if you go with the Big Boss theory of the Bible, no other explanation is necessary. Unless you are like me and think that if we puny humans were able to figure out God and exactly how He did or does anything, He wouldn't be much of a God would he?

And if you go with the Big Bang theory, there is still a notion that something had to light the fuse. And ID-ers can comprehend a universe so vast and so intricate and so unexplainable that we can't quite grasp it all, but that there is some Intelligent Force that set it in motion. For people like me, God would be the author of science, and therefore I have no problem at all reconciling God and science in my head.

And then there is the vacuum cleaner theory. If you put all the parts of a vacuum cleaner into a big sack and shook it, given unlimited time all those parts in the sack would eventually come together as a working vaccuum cleaner until further shaking shook them all apart again. Those advocating that theory assume that we are at this particular junction of the universe because that's how all the parts came together in the sack at this time.

But then there are people like me who say okay, but something's got to shake the sack.

The point being to all this that no matter what theory of creation and evolution feels most right to you, there are huge chunks of it that nobody can explain or prove. There is plenty of room for a belief in God or Intelligent Design AND science. And we really don't have to fuss all that much in order to coexist.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.

001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
light from the darkness

Or, 15 billion or so years ago there was an enormous explosion that originated from a singularity the size of a proton. From that proton sized singularity all the matter in the universe erupted in one cataclysm, the matter that makes up the 400 billion or so stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, and all the matter in the rest of the 125 billion or so galaxies out there.

Seems to me BOTH explanations require an element of faith.

There's a misconception that all opinions and ideas are equal. They're not. While both of the ideas you gave may have some "element" of faith, ONE of those ideas has physical observable ongoing EVIDENCE that supports it. The other does not.