ID is valid

[durangodawood]

.....
ID is invalid

My passport expires at the end of this month.
Thanks for the reminder!
.

 

[Naraoia]

On the matters of this group's opinion, evolution is no more of fact than Intelligent Design.

Perhaps it's time for you to actually learn about evolution.

Why shouldn't it be considered in schools.

Consider it. Just leave it out of the science class.

Its a matter of education, not religion. Intelligent design is a philosophical point of view that allows the student to consider other alternatives to how we originated.

I have nothing against philosophically considering gods and whatnot. So long as they don't pretend it's science.

It not a matter of saying that God of the Bible created humans. It is saying that there is a higher authority that created things.

But, see, we science people don't really care what "higher authority" created what in whose opinion. Everyone is entitled to believe in any supernatural entity they wish to. So long as they don't pretend it's science.

Science proves nothing when it comes to evolution

Or when it comes to anything else, for that matter. Science is an inductive process, it can only provide evidence for or against something, never prove something.

(where are all the fossils of transitional species?).

In the rocks, in museums, in dusty storage rooms all over the world. And, luckily to you, you can learn loads about them if you so wish. Start, for example, here. Or how about you give us a gap and we will round up the transitionals for you if we can.

Why should it be considered relevant material to teach? Because it has been created through experimentation and observation?

Because it's one of the best evidenced theories in science. And because it's literally the foundation of modern biology and a huge part of modern medicine. So, it's (1) good science (2) incredibly useful applied science. Is that reason enough?

There has yet to be an experiment or observation which refutes intelligent design. It just is considered to be impossible.

Wrong. The main problem with ID isn't that it's impossible. It is about as impossible as any other theistic scenario, IOW, we have no idea how impossible it is. The trouble is that ID has no supporting evidence and it is unfalsifiable. The hallmarks of a doomed theory, I'd think.

I believe that people who advocate for evolution and not intelligent design are just as biased as someone who says smoking doesn't kill.

You might want to update your beliefs. No, first you want to learn about evolution. Feel free to ask questions, we are here to help you.

Why then refute intelligent design as impossible & religious.

It's refuted as unverified, unfalsifiable and unscientific. Which it is.

To completely deny the relevance of intelligent design one must be:
A.) Completely ignorant concerning the complexities of the human body
B.) Completely ignorant on the processes of carbon and other forms of radiometric dating

Strangely, I get the impression that the more one learns about these things the less need they see for ID. But that's just a science student here.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would suggest to you that symmetry itself is a sign of design.

Why?

There really isn't any other logical reason that in most species one side mirrors the otherside, and interestingly that is not so very true of the internal workings which usually remain hidden.

If cats and dogs were not bilaterally symmetrical they would run in circles. Therefore, evolution would favor a symmetrical design for effecient locomotion.

 

[Vene]

I would suggest to you that symmetry itself is a sign of design. There really isn't any other logical reason that in most species one side mirrors the otherside, and interestingly that is not so very true of the internal workings which usually remain hidden.

So, let me get this straight, symmetry is evidence for design. Except in all the cases where there isn't symmetry. Nope, not buying it.

(Not to mention that this is still an argument from incredulity; there's symmetry in living things, I don't know how, therefore designed)

 

[sbvera13]

So, an asteroid impacts the Moon at an angle of rougly 30% elevated from the ground. This causes 1. a large crater and 2. spraying a large cloud of debris forward from the impact point. This debris spreads, then falls to the ground. Because there is no wind or atmosphere to interfere with the spread of this debris, it lands on the ground in a symmetrical pattern.

Asteroids are designed?

 

[Loudmouth]

If ID is valid, then why don't we see scientists using it in their research. Scientists apply the theory of evolution in their work (see More Real World Science Involving Evolution), but I can't see how ID could be applied in the same way.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I would suggest to you that symmetry itself is a sign of design. There really isn't any other logical reason that in most species one side mirrors the otherside, and interestingly that is not so very true of the internal workings which usually remain hidden.

Have you ever considered that human designers are inspired by things in nature and that many of thier designs mimic things we see that occur naturally. This does not mean that those things had a designer, they are not copied after mans inventions as mans are copied from other things.

Then of course there is the huge problem with ID in that when anyone isists that complex design requires a designer there can never be an answer to the most basic question which would be who designed God. If God himself, the most powerful of all life and the source of life itself required no designer then surely the slimplier less powerful forms of life required no designer. You can not have it both ways. The whole premise of ID is invalid.

 

[Washington]

What about supersymmetry?

YEAH!

 

[Naraoia]

Why?



If cats and dogs were not bilaterally symmetrical they would run in circles. Therefore, evolution would favor a symmetrical design for effecient locomotion.

LM, is it a real phenomenon that more basal animals (ok, barring the basalmost... Trichoplax doesn't really have any symmetry AFAIK) are actually more symmetrical than, say, a snail or a human? Or is my half-informed intuition leading me in the wrong direction?

I'd reckon that breaking a radial or a bilateral symmetry actually adds another level of complexity to the developmental process. Does that make sense?

I think I'm thinking too much again

 

[Prince Lucianus]

Another copy and paste from one of your other threads.
Great way to increase your posts to *1800

Lucy

 

[RealityCheck]

Oh, symmetry. Is that why I have eyes on the front and back of my head? Why I have a head at the top and bottom of my body?

Oh, guess we're not THAT symmetrical after all.

 

[MoonLancer]

of god was an artiest we would be asymmetrical

 

[plindboe]

<<staff edit of quote>>

That comment is uncalled for. Sure he has some misconceptions, but that's no justification for you acting like that.

Peter

 

[Cassandra]

I would suggest to you that symmetry itself is a sign of design. There really isn't any other logical reason that in most species one side mirrors the otherside, and interestingly that is not so very true of the internal workings which usually remain hidden.

Most (if not all) women have one breast that is (naturally) slightly bigger than the other. Usually it isn't noticeable at all, but I have seen some extreme difference.

By your logic, women aren't/weren't designed.

And...if what I've heard about testicles is true...men aren't/weren't designed either.

Therefore, human beings were not intelligently designed, right?

 

[Tenka]

ID does not want to change science, they know it works quite well and that they can't improve it in any way, all they want to do is say "Do you mind if I put God into this little grey area here and still call it science?"

I believe that people who advocate for evolution and not intelligent design are just as biased as someone who says smoking doesn't kill.

ID is not an alternative to evoluitionary theory, this is your misunderstanding. It does not provide equal or greater explanatory power than the existing theory.

There has yet to be an experiment or observation which refutes intelligent design.

There are no concievable observations that would do so, this failure is precisely why ID cannot be a part of science, ever.

 

[FTPolice]

That comment is uncalled for. Sure he has some misconceptions, but that's no justification for you acting like that.

Peter

Why not? He could click on any thread on the first page to see how wrong he is, this argument doesn't concern advanced biology by any means, the first paragraph of a wikipedia article could easily and clearly refute his argument, but he still makes it. He still comes in, all cocky and stupid and rearing to go. If you are so intellectually lazy that you you'll argue something without even understanding the very basics of it, you deserve nothing better than just straight name calling.

 

[Tomk80]

Most (if not all) women have one breast that is (naturally) slightly bigger than the other. Usually it isn't noticeable at all, but I have seen some extreme difference.

By your logic, women aren't/weren't designed.

And...if what I've heard about testicles is true...men aren't/weren't designed either.

Therefore, human beings were not intelligently designed, right?

Interestingly, researchers have been researching what the most beautiful face is. They did this by making computer models of faces that were perfectly symmetrical. Turns out that there has to be a flaw in the symmetry for the face to be really attractive. Showing that we do not think designed faces (as determined by Littlenipper) are pretty, but that those that are not are pretty.

Weird, but true.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Interestingly, researchers have been researching what the most beautiful face is. They did this by making computer models of faces that were perfectly symmetrical. Turns out that there has to be a flaw in the symmetry for the face to be really attractive. Showing that we do not think designed faces (as determined by Littlenipper) are pretty, but that those that are not are pretty.

Do you have a reference for this? I'd like to read more. As far as I know, it's not correct, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Tomk80]

Do you have a reference for this? I'd like to read more. As far as I know, it's not correct, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

I can't find the reference at this point, sorry. The gist of it was that we are more attracted to symmetric faces, but only so long as the symmetry is not perfect. The latter looks too artificial.

This link may go partway to explaining this, although it is not the research I found on this originally.
http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakult...I/beautycheck/english/symmetrie/symmetrie.htm

 

[Molal]

I really dislike post and run threads......

Looks like the OP was soundly trounced.