Intelligent design to be taught in Queensland schools

[Chicken Little]

"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the folowing way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008""


OH yes .... the wet dream theory.. that is just insane crazy.
only a man would or could come up with this joke of theory . I mean only a guy would think that seeds just magicly create "life" ....... everywoman in the world who has had kids, knows that happens when that alien she is sleeping with "spreads his seed around" most likely it just makes a mess. it will never make life ... or he gets a little smarter and probes the real source of truth... then she gets to create a life.. and then carry it for nine months..

dawk-sin I don't believe you have a brain.. I have never seen it .. I see no evidence of it and so I do not believe it.

good for these Queenslanders who at least give the kids a chance to discuss these stupid, ignorant and arrogant , just too dumb and goofy ideas..


__________________

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the folowing way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008""


OH yes .... the wet dream theory.. that is just insane crazy.
only a man would or could come up with this joke of theory . I mean only a guy would think that seeds just magicly create "life" ....... everywoman in the world who has had kids, knows that happens when that alien she is sleeping with "spreads his seed around" most likely it just makes a mess. it will never make life ... or he gets a little smarter and probes the real source of truth... then she gets to create a life.. and then carry it for nine months..

dawk-sin I don't believe you have a brain.. I have never seen it .. I see no evidence of it and so I do not believe it.

good for these Queenslanders who at least give the kids a chance to discuss these stupid, ignorant and arrogant , just too dumb and goofy ideas..

I'm confused.

How is the Genesis account different from Directed Panspermia/Intelligent Design?

 

[laconicstudent]

"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the folowing way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008""


OH yes .... the wet dream theory.. that is just insane crazy.
only a man would or could come up with this joke of theory . I mean only a guy would think that seeds just magicly create "life" ....... everywoman in the world who has had kids, knows that happens when that alien she is sleeping with "spreads his seed around" most likely it just makes a mess. it will never make life ... or he gets a little smarter and probes the real source of truth... then she gets to create a life.. and then carry it for nine months..

dawk-sin I don't believe you have a brain.. I have never seen it .. I see no evidence of it and so I do not believe it.

good for these Queenslanders who at least give the kids a chance to discuss these stupid, ignorant and arrogant , just too dumb and goofy ideas..


__________________

Excuse me, how old are you?

 

[Darkness27]

OH yes .... the wet dream theory.. that is just insane crazy.
only a man would or could come up with this joke of theory . I mean only a guy would think that seeds just magicly create "life" ....... everywoman in the world who has had kids, knows that happens when that alien she is sleeping with "spreads his seed around" most likely it just makes a mess. it will never make life ... or he gets a little smarter and probes the real source of truth... then she gets to create a life.. and then carry it for nine months..

dawk-sin I don't believe you have a brain.. I have never seen it .. I see no evidence of it and so I do not believe it.

good for these Queenslanders who at least give the kids a chance to discuss these stupid, ignorant and arrogant , just too dumb and goofy ideas..

This is certainly an interesting take on panspermia, can't say that I've heard this idea before, much less understand what it is you've said beyond you don't like Dawkins and something about alien babies.

 

[Taq]

Taq,

One more question: what scientific experiments have you performed in the laboratory to test the validity of Intelligent Design?

Since ID makes no testable predictions it is impossible to run a laboratory test. This is the problem with ID, it isn't science.

 

[Taq]

The answer would require you to actually read the paper.

It is your claim. You read it. You tell me how ID is used to guide original scientific research. Since you believe it you should be able to see it and then describe it for me. That is, unless it doesn't exist. Why must I do your homework?

Well you don't consider physical archaeological evidence and history to be evidence because you believe history is mythological.

Again, how does finding human artifacts evidence the intelligent design of all life on Earth?

When people say evolution what they really mean is abiogenesis.

When I say evolution I am referring to the theory which explains how life, which already exists, changes over time. That is how scientists use the word. You know, those people who actually constructed the theory.

No laboratory experiments were performed on finches and turtles that support evolution. Therefore not original research by your definition.

The lab is where you are. Darwin studied their anatomy and physiology which is a scientific observation.

I don't require it.

Then why do you require Darwin to observe the evolution of already existing species? It would require a time machine.

They require it in order to support their hypotheses.

Not at all. The theory of evolution makes very specific predictions of what we should see in already existing species if the theory is correct. Testing those predictions fulfills the requirements of the scientific method.

How else did Hindus, Chinese, Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, Incas, and Mexicans travel through time to conspire with the Hebrews concerning the stories of the creation and deluge?

Don't forget the flagons of wine needed to make all of the stories different.

"If 50 million people believe a fallacy it is still a fallacy." -- S. Warren Carey, geologist, 1970

This is all you have to refute hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers containing original research which evidences the theory of evolution? Really?

Evolution is utterly useless in science.

SIFTER would disagree. Using the theory of evolution it is possible to predict the function of proteins with 96% accuracy. ID can't do that. It can't even attempt it. That is why evolution is taught and ID is not.

I answered this already.

"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, August 25th 2005


The opposite of evolution.

So evolution can predict protein function and ID can not. Thank you for agreeing with me.

So regardless of whether or not creationism is right or wrong, evolution is still wrong?

False. Creationism has to stand on its own. Gravity fairies did not suddenly become true the moment Newton's Laws of Gravity were falsified. Disproving one theory does not prove another. It is called a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. It would appear that the ID house is built on sand.

 

[Taq]

Taq, you really shouldn't let Agonaces get to you.... Trust me, we've all tried what you are doing before.

I'm fine. Have a thick skin.

Just showing the lurkers how the ID crowd is ignorant of how science works and what science has discovered.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the problem with ID, it isn't science.

Whose problem?

IDists or yours?

Scientists are the ones who set the industry standard they call the Scientific Method.

If something doesn't fit the mold, that's just too bad.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Since ID makes no testable predictions it is impossible to run a laboratory test.

You know that's not true.

"Intelligent design and evolutionary theory are either both testable or both untestable. Parity of reasoning requires that the testability of one entails the testability of the other. Evolutionary theory claims that certain material mechanisms are able to propel the evolutionary process, gradually transforming organisms with one set of characteristics into another (for instance, transforming bacteria without a flagellum into bacteria with one). Intelligent design, by contrast, claims that intelligence needs to supplement material mechanisms if they are to bring about organisms with certain complex features. Accordingly, testing the adequacy or inadequacy of evolutionary mechanisms constitutes a joint test of both evolutionary theory and intelligent design." -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, August 25th 2005

"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the folowing way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008

This is the problem with ID, it isn't science.

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." -- Karl Popper, philosopher, 1976

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Again, how does finding human artifacts evidence the intelligent design of all life on Earth?

How does finding human artifacts provide evidence of the Holocaust?

When I say evolution I am referring to the theory which explains how life, which already exists, changes over time.

How come archaea hasn't changed in 3.6 billion years?

How come cyanobacteria hasn't changed in 2.8 billion years?

How come the fig wasp hasn't changed in 34 million years?

Darwin studied their anatomy and physiology which is a scientific observation.

ID theorists do that too. The only difference is ID makes accurate observations.

Then why do you require Darwin to observe the evolution of already existing species? It would require a time machine.

In other words Darwinism can't be tested. ID can.

Not at all. The theory of evolution makes very specific predictions of what we should see in already existing species if the theory is correct. Testing those predictions fulfills the requirements of the scientific method.

Every prediction evolution has ever made has been falsified. For example, evolution predicted that man evolved 50,000 years ago. LOL.

So evolution can predict protein function and ID can not.

Evolution cannot predict protein function. Only ID successfully predicts protein function.

 

[Split Rock]

Whose problem?

IDists or yours?

Scientists are the ones who set the industry standard they call the Scientific Method.

If something doesn't fit the mold, that's just too bad.

Yup! You are right on target for once. Scientists decide what is science. Science is what scientists do for a living. You can see the effects in the technology all around you. It works. Creationism produces nothing but ignorance ("God wants us to be child-like") and misinformation (like the "crocoduck").

 

[Cabal]

If something doesn't fit the mold, that's just too bad.

Yup - too bad for them, and they should stop whinging about it and stop insisting to be skipped to the top of the class because they're behind everyone else.

Btw, why are you sticking up for a group that you and I have both agreed in the past are sellouts when it comes to claiming whodidit?

This is exactly the same kind of creationist double standard I pointed out on the first page of this thread. ID believers don't even have the stones to claim that God is behind creation, they just hide behind that "intelligent designer" scam - TE does admit Goddidit, but hey, let's just whale on the people who accept science anyway.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

...but hey, let's just whale on the people who accept science anyway.

It's that whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing I think....

 

[Cabal]

It's that whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing I think....

Yes, in my experience, YECism is one of the few things that stops some Christians unilaterally despising Muslims. They'll make the "religion of peace? Ha!" hasty generalisation - but show them a Muslim talking about creationism and some of them will temporarily change their tune fairly sharpish.

 

[AV1611VET]

Btw, why are you sticking up for a group that you and I have both agreed in the past are sellouts when it comes to claiming whodidit?

They're my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Note how much I chime in when the Science Inquisition is after the YECs?

Same thing.

 

[Cabal]

They're my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Note how much I chime in when the Science Inquisition is after the YECs?

Same thing.

That would mean something if you weren't willing to throw your brothers in sisters in Christ who happen to be TE under the bus over this matter on a daily basis.

So as it is, this is just an empty double standard.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would mean something if you weren't willing to throw your brothers in sisters in Christ who happen to be TE under the bus over this matter on a daily basis.

I'm not going to comment on my brothers and sisters in Christ who are theistic evolutionists, other than to say this, the Inquisition doesn't go after them like they do the YECs, Embedded Agers, Gaps, and so on.

That could be for two reasons:

1. The inquisitors don't care what we are. So long as we agree with their evolution, we could be Buddhists for that matter. All that matters to them is that we present our gifts at the altar of knowledge.
2. I won't elaborate.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

The inquisitors don't care what we are. So long as we agree with their evolution, we could be Buddhists for that matter. All that matters to them is that we present our gifts at the altar of knowledge.

Present your gifts to the altar of your choosing. Just do so with the knowledge that if God exists he is far more intelligent and powerful than you give him credit for. Why limit him to your literal interpretation of writings he gave man when we weren't capable of understanding the sheer complications he went through to create the universe.

 

[Cabal]

I'm not going to comment on my brothers and sisters in Christ who are theistic evolutionists, other than to say this, the Inquisition doesn't go after them like they do the YECs, Embedded Agers, Gaps, and so on.

Not on this board, perhaps, but then again, I'm sure that helps you keep your views of topics blinkered. There's a theistic evolutionist group called BioLogos who are getting hit pretty hard by atheists right now.

But hey, keep on presuming that the handful of science supporters here are typical and keep reinforcing your notion that you're being persecuted ("Inquisitors"? REALLY? Melodrama doesn't become you, AV).

That could be for two reasons:

1. The inquisitors don't care what we are. So long as we agree with their evolution, we could be Buddhists for that matter. All that matters to them is that we present our gifts at the altar of knowledge.

1. 
   
   And again - get off this board and have a look at the wider debate. You could not be more wrong.
   
   

   [*]I won't elaborate.

Yeah, I wouldn't.

It's likely wrong anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not on this board, perhaps, but then again, I'm sure that helps you keep your views of topics blinkered. There's a theistic evolutionist group called BioLogos who are getting hit pretty hard by atheists right now.

So?

You mean I have to do some traveling around on the information highway to find out I'm wrong?

Why does that occur on some other website and not here, especially if the topic is a universal one?