"More and more scientists are starting to believe in intelligent design."

[IronWing]

Completely wrong. Creationism is certainly a Hypothesis. Evolution is far beyond Hypothesis and is a Theory that makes testable and useful Predictions.

Creationism is a hypothysis but it is not a scientifically valid hypothesis as it is not falsifiable.

 

[zerocool84]

You really think a species that intelligent would come up with such a shitty design as the human knee? Please, these things need another 100K years of evolution at least.

Don't blame us, blame Ridley Scott.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I dont believe that macro-evolution happened. i dont see how all differences in all life can be exclusively from accumulation of micro-evolution.

Why not?

We haz a winner.

Every idea proposed to explain our creation/evolution is a hypothesis (an educated guess based on what we (think we) know for sure, and certain beliefs). Even if we manage to prove without a doubt the existence of Evolution, we still have the question of whether Evolution itself was mere chance, or by design. As we don't currently have means of time travel, nor centuries (or millennia) to spend on repeatable experiments, obtaining undeniable proof of either is unlikely to happen, at least, within any of our lifetimes.

And without proof, we also lack understanding. This is why I think arguing over this topic is utterly stupid and childish. (seriously, imagine two full grown adults arguing over whether Java or C++ is better, with neither having programmed anything in their lives. )

No, we have someone who doesn't understand basic concepts involved. No, you lack understanding. That's why people discussing this look "utterly stupid and childish" to you.

And to top it off we have an analogy that just shows how much you don't understand.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm not an apologist but a realist. Since you seem to be good at linking to wikipedia, take up world famous chemist Dr. Tour on his challenge to explain macroevolution to him at the molecular level. You'll get a free meal out of it, not to mention get your ass handed to you.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

Sure it is. And there's absolutely zero proof for such a theory spanning millions of years, just like Darwinian macroevolution has been debunked. I'm not saying it's not possible, simply that there isn't proof that microev = macroev. Quite frankly, Stephen Gould's theories hold more weight than Dawkins.

Ahem. From 2001. Some incredibly large heavy hitters on that list.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

 

[WHAMPOM]

What intelligent design? All you have to do is point out the obvious back-assward design of the human eye and appendix.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Yet another wacko post that should be in P&N being posted here instead. I get the feeling that they NEED to troll with there nonsense and will do so anywhere they can.

I swear, the nut jobs that post this stuff, that troll this stuff, must be part psycho and that posting this nonsense satisfies some sick need to piss people off. We all have to fart from time to time and most of us look for someplace to release it without effecting others, but these guys want to effect others. They will hold it in until they can get into a crowded elevator and then, when the door is closed, let lose.


Brian

 

[CottonRabbit]

Sure it is. And there's absolutely zero proof for such a theory spanning millions of years, just like Darwinian macroevolution has been debunked. I'm not saying it's not possible, simply that there isn't proof that microev = macroev. Quite frankly, Stephen Gould's theories hold more weight than Dawkins.

How has it been debunked? The only argument you offer is that we have an incomplete mechanistic understanding of evolution at the molecular level. How does that disprove evolution in any way? Also, flip open journal like Cell and you'll see that we have a better molecular understanding of evolution than you think.

 

[Puppies04]

What intelligent design? All you have to do is point out the obvious back-assward design of the human eye and appendix.

Don't forget the nerve in your neck that goes round your heart because that would have been a straight line before mammals evolved from fish. It is about 5m long in a giraffe and it only needs to be a few centimeters to perform its function.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Why not?



No, we have someone who doesn't understand basic concepts involved. No, you lack understanding. That's why people discussing this look "utterly stupid and childish" to you.

And to top it off we have an analogy that just shows how much you don't understand.

Know what, I don't understand most people. Happy?

 

[John Connor]

I believe in "intelligent design," but I don't believe everything the Bible says. I think the Bible is like a game of telephone.

You don't get something from nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tPnALg_nJs

 

[darkswordsman17]

From that link, you are right that we don't have a great idea on how life originated. However, that does not disprove the copious amount of genetic information available showing evolution between extant species from bacteria to man.

That link doesn't do shit. Its one person trying to tout the guy as some shining beacon of science who alone throws out the entire argument of macroevolution because he claims no one can understand this because he can't and he claims others tell him they have no idea either.

Look at the excerpts (and if you read that first article it links to), all the guy does is say he doesn't understand. He doesn't explain what he doesn't understand about it, just that he does not understand. Then he says a bunch of stuff about how all these other scientists he claims also say they don't understand and other things that in no way presents anything than the guy does not understand this.

I don't know how he expects anyone to be able to explain it, or debate it with him, or whatever he's looking for when he can't even explain what his actual issues with it are.

From what I can tell, he doesn't understand it and thinks his knowledge of molecular science should be able to alone help him understand it. I don't know if he's just being misguided, or what, but its telling that he spends more time focused on him feeling like him and others are being attacked over it than anything.

 

[Kadarin]

The "scientist" who believes in Intelligent Design is not a scientist, regardless of whether he (or she) calls himself one.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Know what, I don't understand most people. Happy?

Ok...?

Nothing wrong in admitting you don't understand, but your previous post sure made it sound like you were critical of people discussing the topic when you yourself showed little ability to understand it (very little beyond superficial, enough that you seemed to be dismissing both sides as though their claims were similar).

Happy with what? I'd be a lot happier if instead of making bad analogies and blanket statements you'd educate yourself on the topic.

 

[lxskllr]

Thanks to whoever linked this comic site(Ruptga?). I've been reading it off and on all day.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2230#comic

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How has it been debunked? The only argument you offer is that we have an incomplete mechanistic understanding of evolution at the molecular level. How does that disprove evolution in any way? Also, flip open journal like Cell and you'll see that we have a better molecular understanding of evolution than you think.

Evolution doesn't really even operate at the molecular level. We have a thorough understanding of things like genetics, but that's only part of evolution. You can't explain things like selective pressure and reproductive isolation of a population in molecular terms. You might as well call plate tectonics "bunk" because nobody can explain it in molecular terms.

 

[mnewsham]

I believe in "intelligent design," but I don't believe everything the Bible says. I think the Bible is like a game of telephone.

You don't get something from nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tPnALg_nJs

If the bible is partly right but obscured through time and retelling and such. What makes the religion the bible promotes more valid than a religion that started before Christianity? I mean, we can fairly reliably trace Christianity back to it's roots and from there we can see all of the polytheistic religions which eventually formed what is Christianity so why say THIS particular stage of Christianity is correct vs. what the several religions that came to make up what we now know as Christianity being valid. Basically what makes this particular version of religion with only 1 God the "correct" religion when we can clearly show that the religions that would eventually turn into Christianity started as polytheistic and far from what we would recognize today as Christianity.

If time has distorted the religion wouldn't the original polytheistic religion be more faithful to the actual religion than the current day translation that has been passed down throughout many many generations and garbled along the way.

Ah well, religion just isn't my thing.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I believe in "intelligent design," but I don't believe everything the Bible says. I think the Bible is like a game of telephone.

You don't get something from nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tPnALg_nJs

When has there ever been "nothing"?

 

[Aldon]

How has it been debunked? The only argument you offer is that we have an incomplete mechanistic understanding of evolution at the molecular level. How does that disprove evolution in any way? Also, flip open journal like Cell and you'll see that we have a better molecular understanding of evolution than you think.

Charles Darwin wrong: Modern scientists debunk Darwin's 'Tree of Life' diagram

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Charles Darwin wrong: Modern scientists debunk Darwin's 'Tree of Life' diagram

I would call that refinement, not debunking.

 

[Paratus]

Maybe because as more and more evidence mounts, Darwinian macroevolution has been dead in the water since 2001 (despite our silly attempts to perpetuate it).
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/



When 700 scientists all agree against something, it's dead in the water. Now while they said they weren't FOR intelligent design, they have effectively destroyed its competition (Darwinian macroevolution). As a result, more and more people are getting on-board with Intelligent Design because we simply have no explanation for how we evolved. The fossil record doesn't support it, and we can't support it via DNA theories that have to make huge assumptions to make any sense.

Aw, somebody was too butthurt to respond. It's ok. Dr. Tour's level of molecular understanding trumps anything you (or 99.9% of these forum members) would have to say on the matter. Come talk to us when you are one of the top 10 most cited chemists in the world.

Macroevolution.is.dead. Intelligent design is gaining steam faster than you'd like to admit, and will continue to gain steam as more and more evidence is revealed that blows Darwinists out of the water.

For example: http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/evolution-youre-drunk



KABOOM. That's the sound of Darwinists' heads exploding. Welcome to 2014, please stay awhile and let's discuss Intelligent Design now that macroevolution is dead.

The bottom line:

And here we go folks. All the proof needed to prove we are not intelligently designed.......

:sneaky:

 

[Aldon]

You should also add that you believe in a democracy and include quote by Milton Friedman. That would be the cherry on the top.

 

[CottonRabbit]

Charles Darwin wrong: Modern scientists debunk Darwin's 'Tree of Life' diagram

Phylogenetics has nothing to do with the mechanism or existence of Darwinian evolution. When Darwin drew his tree of life, he did not have any of the genetic tools with which phylogeny is based on today.

 

[Aldon]

Define the existence of evolution or prove any kind of existence for evolution.

 

[RandomWords]

You really think a species that intelligent would come up with such a shitty design as the human knee? Please, these things need another 100K years of evolution at least.

The aliens would just be a stepping stone, because who designed the aliens? It would actually make things worse, because if something as complex as life can't be the result of coincidence, something so complex that it could actually create something as complex as life surely can't be.

You both obviously miss the cleverness and humor of the line - which can happen - when you take things out of context.

 

[Chaotic42]

Edit: Never mind, already covered.