| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
That's a good one. The one who is discounting a scientific study lecturing me on ignorance.  And to add, the scientist who discounts a possibility without evidence is a fool. BTW, I would be more in the camp of Intelligent Design. I doubt you have a clue of the difference though. Next we'll be hearing about how this is a flawed study funded by a right leaning university! | ||
| Cataract2 |
Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudo-scientific theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.  | ||
| Sifo |
Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudo-scientific theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Well I guess that would the "Wikipedia" definition. Also wrong. ID doesn't get into anything about natural selection. Nada. Has nothing to do with "features of the universe", what ever that means. It only deals with the origin of life. Once life starts, ID theory stops. Thanks for proving the point. | ||
| Cataract2 |
inˇtelˇliˇgent deˇsign noun noun: intelligent design 1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity. Oh and here is the Merriam dictionary definition of it. intelligent design noun : the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence Hm, seem to say the same thing. Odd. Wonder what the "intelligent entity" might be... Sigh.  (Message edited by cataract2 on April 17, 2014) | ||
| Hughlysses |
We're getting WAY off-track here, but as an engineer who knows how difficult it is to get a fairly simple machine that was designed by a team of very smart people to work correctly, it is incomprehensible to me that "life" could spontaneously arise from a chemical soup and through strictly natural selection (trial and error), reach the level of complexity represented by a single cell (the sophistication of which is mind-boggling), much less an organism as complex as a human being. That said, I'm for the legalization of marijuana but I wish people wouldn't use it. | ||
| Aesquire |
ID is creationism with a new paint job. Not science Astrology is as valid a science..... neither yield to fact. Arguing don't make it so. That said.... makes sense to me that reality didn't just happen. It also made sense to me to buy a Buell so take that as you will. It also makes sense that getting intoxicated daily has negative side effects and certainly growing brains shouldn't do so. Since the typical male brain isn't really mature until about 23-25.......... Legalize it tax it and remember aspirin would NEVER get past the FDA. There's a reason we laughed at Cheech & Chong. Getting stoned makes you stupid. | ||
| Aesquire |
Not that I have any intention or desire to change your mind on the Idea of far greater beings than we can imagine creating everything. I even agree although we may differ on quibbling details. ( which may be Capitol Blasphemy in another country ) It's just not Science in the sense that chemistry or Statics are. And even there it's not a dead nuts certainty on everything. The speed of light may be changing. .... Which brings us back to.........squirrel! !! | ||
| Hughlysses |
We're on the same page Aesquire. Squirrel?!!! Where? | ||
| Reindog |
ALL y'all are bongin' out on this thread. All y'all chillens chill out and pass the spliff, yo. All y'all have convinced me is of the proof of Unintelligent Design. Oh, and welcome back Spidey! | ||
| Sifo |
Well this has been hashed through before, but the ID theory is about the origin of life only. Implications of accepting or rejecting that theory of course are farther reaching, just as many theories have implications beyond just that theory. Sorry for anyone who can't accept that. Stephen Meyer has probably done more work on this theory than anyone else alive. He's written an excellent book on the subject and he makes the point numerous times that it only deals with the origin of life. It doesn't get into creation. It doesn't get into Darwinism. It doesn't get into the origins of human beings. It begins and ends with how life came into being in the universe. Not on earth, the universe. Is it science? No. It's a theory. Science is about providing evidence that supports or contradicts a theory. Meyer does to a credible job of providing evidence of this being a likely correct theory. He does this through mathematical theory. Claiming this isn't science is the same as claiming Einstein's work isn't science. Einstein's work was pretty much only theory. He relied on others to prove or disprove his mathematics through physical experiments. Of course ANY theory about the origin of life can't be proven or disproven by physical experimentation. Mostly you compare theories and the evidence that supports or conflicts with each to see what fits best. With physical experimentation, the best you can possibly do is prove that life CAN be created in a certain way. Of course that would prove ID as a viable theory. One thing that is absolutely clear though. Rejecting a theory because it may conflict with your personal religious beliefs is NOT science. Meyer's book BTW is an excellent read if you should ever chose to not sound completely ignorant with someone familiar with the subject. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer I'll stop harping on this because when it takes this much effort to simply get someone to grasp WHAT a theory is about, discussion of the merits of the theory is obviously futile. | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Crusty |
I really wonder about Intelligent Design when I read through some of the political threads on Badweb. I'd probably have to smoke a fatty to comprehend the drift in just this thread alone. How did it go from smoking pot makes you stupid to God created this mess, anyhow? | ||
| Sifo |
How did it go from smoking pot makes you stupid to God created this mess, anyhow? That was one of the choomers saying I was a creationist. VERY short attention span combined with a lack of focus. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Ok Choomers how many of you discount Intelligent Design ? My Faithful side feels sad for you and what your Missing. Years in Bio research and Engineering are the source of my Respect for Intelligent Design. Those that discount ID are the progeny of those denied the existence of Germs! Quick version ARE YOU GOING TO BE SURPRISED! In the Spirit of the Season Happy Easter and to the Churched take a Non Churched Badweber to Services with you!  | ||
| Sifo |
On a serious side, so this is aimed more at Aesquire, not the choomers... If ID is not science because it can not be proven "scientifically", is the theory that life spontaneously happened any more science? Is the quest for the origin of life never a scientific quest? What about trying to understand the beginning of the universe? Science or not? | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Im tired of pot, abortion and homosexuality driving a wedge between people who want liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the only ones winning are the ones writing more laws and extending their power. | ||
| Ljm |
And THAT, Brian is sad point in all of this. Everyone in our political machine is arguing, playing politics, grinding partisan axes over things that are not fundamental to the constitution and the liberties on which this country was founded on, and those in power will continue to erode those very freedoms. We are all fiddling while Rome burns. | ||
| Alfau |
endorphins found in chocolate and also marihuana make women randy. lol. | ||
| Alfau |
Where's the j ? you say! | ||
| Aesquire |
Sifo there is afaik no scientific evidence that life just happened. Believe it or not science not only does not explain everything, it isn't settled! !!! There is a chemical in pot that is close to a hormone produced in labor that makes women forget how bad it hurts. Without that hormone the species would die out........ since no woman would let a man near them after her first baby. This is the chemical that causes short term memory loss. So half the pot humor has a very scientific basis in ..........ooooooooh........ shiny! | ||
| Aesquire |
Even the physicist who can discuss the first fractions of a second after the big bang cannot describe the half hour before it. And a lot of the speculation about that beginning seconds is extrapolating from echoes. A Jesuit could better describe the philosophical issues involved. ......... but last I heard they were still.doing the bit where "unprovable" was itself proof. Again I don't say ID gets it wrong. I just say it's philosophy not physics. Gotta draw the line somewhere and I think it's at "then a miracle occurs". In climate con the line seems to be "then a govt. Grant occurs" or "this is why you must obey us" | ||
| Sifo |
Aesquire, this is where I find an unusual streak in you. Typically you seem to be able to form well informed opinions and express them well. My question was not a hard one either. It's simply about your opinion on two branches of what most people will call science. You've made it clear that one branch, that supports a theory that intelligence was involved in life forming in our universe, is not in your opinion, science. I'm simply trying to ask, in your opinion is the branch that supports random generation of life science or not. Oddly, on this you seem to dance around the answer. No doubt that science can't provide all the answers. On that we agree. To take this conversation much further will probably not be productive though. If you want to be informed about ID theory, I would really recommend reading Meyer's book on the subject. Frankly you would be far better served doing that than getting a half-assed explanation from me. If you don't want to be informed, then my half-assed explanation does no good for either of us. For some reason, to this point, arguments I've seen against ID seem to be founded largely on ignorance of the theory. That makes for a poor discussion. I am interested on if you think any quest for knowledge about the origin of life is science though. | ||
| Rick_a |
Seems a few in here are smoking the reefer.  | ||
| Aesquire |
"The branch of science that says it all happened randomly" are the pot smokers. Sorry I didn't make that clear.  Enough on niggling points of philosophy. I am skeptical of studies that seem to be pretext. I'm sure I can get a study that tells us how bad motorcycles with "sporting features" are. | ||
| Sifo |
So one theory on the origin of life is not science, but another is something you won't comment on. You're usually better than that. I guess the mathematics and physics involved in the theory must be false? | ||
| Reepicheep |
Intellectually, I have a lot less of a struggle accepting that there is a force outside the universe that played a role in creating it (I call him God), then I do accepting that a photon knows if it is being watched or not. | ||
| Fast1075 |
And now we return the thread to the controversy over drain bamage. Uh, brane damidge, Uh.......SHINY!!!! | ||
| Aesquire |
If a "scientist" tells you he has proof that x just happened he's blowing smoke ( there! Back on subject ) I'll look at the work you mention above. The correct honest answer to "what is the origin of life" is "I don't know". You can interpret experiments with primordial ooze & sparks that the building blocks of life occurred naturally. From amino acids to Milla Jovovich however. ............ my bet is miracle. I have no scientific proof but dang. | ||
| Sticks |
We leased to a pot dispensary. For a time anyway. It's kinda halfsy whatsy leagalish in Washington. Well, that relationship deteriorated somewhat. The owner was, wait for it... A complete pot head. I know, what are the chances? Anyway, I got to see first hand all of the magical thinking, the guy never read anything that he got from the city or the contract that they signed with us. Now they owe us about 18k and counting. They were grossing about 3 to 5 hundredk a year so I don't know why they can't pay us what we are due. Except for the magical pot thinking part. Dude! | ||
| Sifo |
The correct honest answer to "what is the origin of life" is "I don't know". I'll keep that in mind should I ever get the notion to ask you that question.  |
