• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
LongeCity .                       Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

Intelligent Design and Science – In or Out?

id debate intelligent design is id science god and sience creationism neutral id position

  • Please log in to reply
1221 replies to this topic

#1201 Clacksberg

  • Registered User
  • 137 posts
  • 5
  • Location:morecambe. england
  • NO

Posted 12 May 2015 - 02:14 PM

platypus wont read anything to do with Frank..that i know



#1202 platypus

  • Member
  • 2,270 posts
  • 229
  • Location:Italy

Posted 12 May 2015 - 02:19 PM

platypus wont read anything to do with Frank..that i know

I've very much enjoyed his paper about the non-existence of intelligent aliens ( http://adsabs.harvar...QJRAS..21..267T) but I do not want to read his crazy stuff (it's inevitable that an super-advanced civilization (judeo-christian god?) at the end of time will "resurrect" us via advanced computing - hello?? :|o ). 



#1203 calyptus

  • Registered User
  • 27 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 12 May 2015 - 05:32 PM

The mistake you are making is to equate the "wedge" with ID.

 

Which is why I made the distinction between naturalistic id and supernaturalistic id in the same comment.

 

I'm not going to waste any more time on this. You don't have a mechanism to establish supernaturalistic id so why should I care.


Edited by calyptus, 12 May 2015 - 05:36 PM.


#1204 Clacksberg

  • Registered User
  • 137 posts
  • 5
  • Location:morecambe. england
  • NO

Posted 12 May 2015 - 07:26 PM

 

platypus wont read anything to do with Frank..that i know

I've very much enjoyed his paper about the non-existence of intelligent aliens ( http://adsabs.harvar...QJRAS..21..267T) but I do not want to read his crazy stuff (it's inevitable that an super-advanced civilization (judeo-christian god?) at the end of time will "resurrect" us via advanced computing - hello?? :|o ). 

 

 

Yes i know what you mean..

A funny thought experiment though, say i was cryosuspended and reanimated in 300 years time - if it's the old me that comes back, which is what a lot of cryonics guys think - if i can have a gap in my experience, whats wrong with a 10,000 year gap and my neurons being simulated on a similar media as the brain/body??

In 10,000 years they could bring me back by just estimated  simulation. JUST FOR A LAUGH!



#1205 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,647 posts
  • -260
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 12 May 2015 - 08:29 PM

 

The mistake you are making is to equate the "wedge" with ID.

 

Which is why I made the distinction between naturalistic id and supernaturalistic id in the same comment.

 

I'm not going to waste any more time on this. You don't have a mechanism to establish supernaturalistic id so why should I care.

 

 

I notice you say nothing about the "Wedge" source I posted.  ID is scientific and deserves to be studied.  Science is limited to the material aspect of the world, what ever that is given the state of cosmology.  What is matter?  Now that you wasted our time with a bunch of false charges, you are not going to waste your time.  OK.
 



#1206 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,647 posts
  • -260
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 12 May 2015 - 08:41 PM

I am a scientist and can assess the impact of published scientific papers. ID only results in pamphlets in 3rd-rate or even non peer-reviewed journals. This means it is not a scientific theory and that it has not contributed anything to science. I'm sorry to break you the news but I have to call it how it is. 

You have several times claimed to be a scientist and now you claim to be able to assess peer reviews.  I quoted and sourced Frank Tipler and his take on it.  Lets compare his qualifications with  your conclusions.  So you are a scientist.  Give us your background, then I will give you his.  Here is his post again.   http://intelligentde...T16_29_38-07_00

 


Edited by shadowhawk, 12 May 2015 - 08:45 PM.


#1207 The Brain

  • Registered User
  • 599 posts
  • 1
  • Location:christchurch
  • NO

Posted 12 May 2015 - 10:09 PM

Has anyone proven the existence of the hateful psychopathic god of christian beliefs yet ?
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1208 platypus

  • Member
  • 2,270 posts
  • 229
  • Location:Italy

Posted 13 May 2015 - 07:49 AM

 

I am a scientist and can assess the impact of published scientific papers. ID only results in pamphlets in 3rd-rate or even non peer-reviewed journals. This means it is not a scientific theory and that it has not contributed anything to science. I'm sorry to break you the news but I have to call it how it is. 

You have several times claimed to be a scientist and now you claim to be able to assess peer reviews.  I quoted and sourced Frank Tipler and his take on it.  Lets compare his qualifications with  your conclusions.  So you are a scientist.  Give us your background, then I will give you his.  Here is his post again.   http://intelligentde...T16_29_38-07_00

 

So where are the references in his post?

 

Also, why is it that you shadowhawk or nobody else cannot name any contribution that ID/creationism has made to science? How come you do not care that during 150 years ID/creationism has achieved exactly nothing? 



#1209 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,647 posts
  • -260
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 13 May 2015 - 08:47 PM

Mr claimed scientist.  I noticed you completely ignored my questions.  :)  ID is a modern theory, not nearly 150 years old.  Shows how much you know about ID.  Now tell me do you ask this same question of other modern day theories?   Next what do you mean bu "contribution?"  Is understanding a contribution?  Finally what do you mean by references in his post?  It was a talk.



#1210 The Brain

  • Registered User
  • 599 posts
  • 1
  • Location:christchurch
  • NO

Posted 13 May 2015 - 10:07 PM

Haven't you been ignoring questions all throughout the thread ?

#1211 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,647 posts
  • -260
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 14 May 2015 - 12:16 AM

Smoke with no example.  How USUAL.



#1212 platypus

  • Member
  • 2,270 posts
  • 229
  • Location:Italy

Posted 14 May 2015 - 08:32 AM

So, yet again, creationists fail to name even a single scientific contribution of creationism/ID. Haven't these people considered that perhaps they are possessed by a malevolent demon who is making them support a cause that is inherently flawed? Why else would anyone support something that clearly doesn't work? 



#1213 The Brain

  • Registered User
  • 599 posts
  • 1
  • Location:christchurch
  • NO

Posted 14 May 2015 - 09:05 AM

Smoke with no example. How USUAL.


Avoiding your USUAL hypocrisy, WANKER !
  • Unfriendly x 1

#1214 platypus

  • Member
  • 2,270 posts
  • 229
  • Location:Italy

Posted 14 May 2015 - 09:29 AM

People believing in ID have been scammed by a cult. That is sad. 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#1215 The Brain

  • Registered User
  • 599 posts
  • 1
  • Location:christchurch
  • NO

Posted 14 May 2015 - 11:06 AM

Shadowdork is sad, look how many hours the sad arse has spent on this message board posting screeds and screeds of shit all to bolster his hungry ego.
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1216 platypus

  • Member
  • 2,270 posts
  • 229
  • Location:Italy

Posted 14 May 2015 - 11:47 AM

There are a lot of sad Christians out there. 


  • Ill informed x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1217 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,647 posts
  • -260
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 14 May 2015 - 08:36 PM

Platypus: So, yet again, creationists fail to name even a single scientific contribution of creationism/ID. Haven't these people considered that perhaps they are possessed by a malevolent demon who is making them support a cause that is inherently flawed? Why else would anyone support something that clearly doesn't work?


Notice again our self proclaimed scientist again did not post his credentials.  Hmmmm.  Nor has he told us what a scientific contribution is as has been asked for.  Then he calls ID proponents creationists, not a bad word but ID proponents are not creationists.  Then he launches into a scientific diatribe claiming they are influenced by demons no less.  Without a drop of evidence he claims this demon has led ID proponents to support something that does not work.  And this from a self proclaimed scientist!  :)  What does it mean to work?

People believing in ID have been scammed by a cult. That is sad.

Empty charge from the scientist, self proclaimed.

There are a lot of sad Christians out there.

Bigotry from our scientist.  How sad.  ID is made up of people of all faiths and non faiths but for some the truth doesn’t matter.  
 

#1218 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,647 posts
  • -260
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 14 May 2015 - 08:39 PM

Platypus: So, yet again, creationists fail to name even a single scientific contribution of creationism/ID. Haven't these people considered that perhaps they are possessed by a malevolent demon who is making them support a cause that is inherently flawed? Why else would anyone support something that clearly doesn't work?


Notice again our self proclaimed scientist again did not post his credentials.  Hmmmm.  Nor has he told us what a scientific contribution is as has been asked for.  Then he calls ID proponents creationists, not a bad word but ID proponents are not creationists.  Then he launches into a scientific diatribe claiming they are influenced by demons no less.  Without a drop of evidence he claims this demon has led ID proponents to support something that does not work.  And this from a self proclaimed scientist!  :)  What does it mean to work?

People believing in ID have been scammed by a cult. That is sad.

Empty charge from the scientist, self proclaimed.

There are a lot of sad Christians out there.

Bigotry from our scientist.  How sad.  ID is made up of people of all faiths and non faiths but for some the truth doesn’t matter.  
 

#1219 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,647 posts
  • -260
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 02 June 2015 - 02:14 AM

Just how much luck was involved? Dr. David Berlinski discusses it here:

Was nature lucky? It depends on the payoff and the odds. The payoff is clear: an ancestral form of RNA capable of replication. Without that payoff, there is no life, and obviously, at some point, the payoff paid well. The question is the odds.

For the moment, no one knows precisely how to compute those odds, if only because within the laboratory, no one has conducted an experiment leading to a self-replicating ribozyme. But the minimum length or "sequence" that is needed for a contemporary ribozyme to undertake what the distinguished geochemist Gustaf Arrhenius calls "demonstrated ligase activity" is known. It is roughly 100 nucleotides.

Whereupon, just as one might expect, things blow up very quickly. As Arrhenius notes, there are 4100, or roughly 1060 nucleotide sequences that are 100 nucleotides in length. This is an unfathomably large number. It exceeds the number of atoms in the universe, as well as the age of the universe in seconds. If the odds in favor of self-replication are 1 in 1060, no betting man would take them, no matter how attractive the payoff, and neither presumably would nature.1

Following that description, Berlinski notes that Arrhenius seeks to escape his own dilemma by proposing that such long self-replicating sequences may not have been as rare in the primeval earth as they are today. He then answers:

Why should self-replicating RNA molecules have been common 3.6 billion years ago when they are impossible to discern under laboratory conditions today? No one, for that matter, has ever seen a ribozyme capable of any form of catalytic action that is not very specific in its sequence and thus unlike even closely related sequences. No one has ever seen a ribozyme able to undertake chemical action without a suite of enzymes in attendance. No one has ever seen anything like it.

The odds, then, are daunting; and when considered realistically, they are even worse than this already alarming account might suggest. The discovery of a single molecule with the power to initiate replication would hardly be sufficient to establish replication. What template would it replicate against? We need, in other words, at least two, causing the odds of their joint discovery to increase from 1 in 1060 to 1 in 10120. Those two sequences would have been needed in roughly the same place. And at the same time. And organized in such a way as to favor base pairing. And somehow held in place. And buffered against competing reactions. And productive enough so that their duplicates would not at once vanish in the soundless sea.

In contemplating the discovery by chance of two RNA sequences a mere forty nucleotides in length, Joyce and Orgel concluded that the requisite "library" would require 1048 possible sequences. Given the weight of RNA, they observed gloomily, the relevant sample space would exceed the mass of the Earth. And this is the same Leslie Orgel, it will be remembered, who observed that "it was almost certain that there once was an RNA world."

  • Good Point x 1

#1220 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,647 posts
  • -260
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 21 April 2017 - 06:06 PM

I think Platypus wants to discuss evolution.  Perhaps he has something to add to the last 41 pages.  :)



#1221 platypus

  • Member
  • 2,270 posts
  • 229
  • Location:Italy

Posted 24 April 2017 - 08:07 AM

I'd just like to point out the following errors in the Bible: 

 

- There has not been a global flood and resulting extinction-event on Earth during the existence of Homo Sapiens

- All species have evolved from others and the Bible says nothing about this. 



#1222 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,647 posts
  • -260
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 24 April 2017 - 09:48 PM

Why do you think the flood was global?  It does not say that anywhere.  Does floods cover the earth.  Can you think of any huge floods?

Is there any evidence for intelligent design?  Some Christians are are evolutionists such as Francis Colleens.  Your argument is an argument from silence.

 

Nether is an error.  Proof and evidence.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: id debate, intelligent design, is id science, god and sience, creationism, neutral id position

4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users