|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
![]() |
me b zola
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:33 PM Original message |
Is there a scientific theory of 'intelligent design'? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karlrschneider
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:34 PM Response to Original message |
1. Short answer: no...long answer: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:47 PM Response to Reply #1 |
5. You Are Totally Incorrect. But Don't Let Your Fundamentalism Stop You |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pmbryant
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:56 PM Response to Reply #5 |
12. What does that have to do with "intelligent design"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:03 PM Response to Reply #12 |
18. Established Science Contends That The Universe Proceeds From |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pmbryant
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:10 PM Response to Reply #18 |
27. You're not up on the latest in science |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:22 PM Response to Reply #27 |
39. Define "Quantum Flapdoodle." YOU Are The One Who Mentioned It. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pmbryant
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:30 PM Response to Reply #39 |
45. "Quantum flapdoodle" == Misuse of quantum physics |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
me b zola
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 09:06 PM Response to Reply #27 |
61. But is there a scientific theory |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Baconfoot
![]() |
Thu Jan-20-05 12:13 AM Response to Reply #12 |
67. Again with the philosophy bashing...n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrWeird
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:57 PM Response to Reply #5 |
16. Goswami is a new-age quack. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pmbryant
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:03 PM Response to Reply #16 |
19. "Quantum flapdoodle" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:08 PM Response to Reply #19 |
24. How Is What You Posted An Argument? Have You Read The Work |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Taxloss
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:13 PM Response to Reply #24 |
32. But ID isn't an "argument". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:16 PM Response to Reply #32 |
35. It Most Certainly IS A Theory & What YOU Posted Is Not A Rebuttal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Taxloss
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:31 PM Response to Reply #35 |
46. So demonstrate the intelligence. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:06 PM Response to Reply #16 |
21. Using Guilt By Assocation Weaken Your Case. And Commenting On |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrWeird
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:20 PM Response to Reply #21 |
38. popular "science" books aren't evidence of anything. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:26 PM Response to Reply #38 |
43. Since You Haven't Bothered To Read Up On The Subject Why Even |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DrWeird
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 08:23 PM Response to Reply #43 |
52. Some guy with a PhD writes a goofy new age book... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 11:05 PM Response to Reply #52 |
65. A Joke In His Own Community? How Is That A Rebuttal? And What |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
muriel_volestrangler
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:30 PM Response to Reply #5 |
44. I think this quote from Goswami shows his ignorance of evolutionary theory |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
me b zola
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 08:33 PM Response to Reply #5 |
54. Is it a scientific theory? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
me b zola
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 08:56 PM Response to Reply #5 |
58. 'scuse me... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren DeMontague
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:37 PM Response to Original message |
2. It's the same kind of "science" that says dinosaur bones were planted |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:51 PM Response to Reply #2 |
7. No, Actually. It's Not. Physicists Posit The Theory That The Universe |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Taxloss
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:55 PM Response to Reply #7 |
11. Links? Perchance? Anything? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:18 PM Response to Reply #11 |
36. Who Mentioned God? And If You Believe The Universe Proceeds |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Taxloss
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:23 PM Response to Reply #36 |
41. Belief that before there was anything, there was matter? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Taxloss
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:56 PM Response to Reply #7 |
13. If the universe is too complex to be random, what is God? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RC
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:07 PM Response to Reply #13 |
23. What makes you think the Universe was designed? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Taxloss
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:11 PM Response to Reply #23 |
28. I don't think the universe was designed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren DeMontague
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:15 PM Response to Reply #7 |
34. Don't get all Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky on ME, bub. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
raggedcompany
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:51 PM Response to Reply #2 |
9. click here to get a good laugh at their "science" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Taxloss
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:59 PM Response to Reply #9 |
17. That "experiment" is every bit as valid |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Canuckistanian
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:14 PM Response to Reply #9 |
33. Proof positive, sir, proof positive! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Johonny
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:42 PM Response to Original message |
3. Sort of. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
me b zola
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:57 PM Response to Reply #3 |
14. But I am looking for scientific theory. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Taxloss
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:09 PM Response to Reply #14 |
26. OK, ID relies on notions of perfection. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Johonny
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:11 PM Response to Reply #14 |
29. That's the theory |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
me b zola
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 09:03 PM Response to Reply #29 |
59. Okay |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
raggedcompany
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:44 PM Response to Original message |
4. None. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
superconnected
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:54 PM Response to Reply #4 |
10. you just got to feel sorry for those idiots |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
me b zola
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:58 PM Response to Reply #10 |
51. Sorry if you are offended. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
superconnected
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 10:18 PM Response to Reply #51 |
63. I agree with that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Az
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:47 PM Response to Original message |
6. There is a concerted effort to appear to have a theory |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:57 PM Response to Reply #6 |
15. Intelligent Design Is Simplyl Downward Causation Where The Universe |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Trajan
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 08:33 PM Response to Reply #15 |
55. You keep using this term ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
McKenzie
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 06:51 PM Response to Original message |
8. ancient cultures had religion, ID types have religion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jody
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:04 PM Response to Original message |
20. NO! Various competitive ideas fail the rigor of the scientific method. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CarpeVeritas
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:07 PM Response to Original message |
22. sure- it's called "Genesis, chapter 1" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Joe Chi Minh
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:08 PM Response to Original message |
25. It's a matter of common-sense |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dudley_DUright
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:12 PM Response to Original message |
30. Intelligent design is just more "creationist science" hokum |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
librechik
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:12 PM Response to Original message |
31. it's a great theory, but it's not science |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KittyWampus
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:20 PM Response to Reply #31 |
37. You Are Incorrect. Experiments Have Proven The Universe Is Non-Local |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
librechik
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:22 PM Response to Reply #37 |
40. and how do we prove a singular "intelligence" is responsible for that? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dudley_DUright
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:34 PM Response to Reply #37 |
47. True, but what does the Aspect experiment showing EPR to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pmbryant
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:48 PM Response to Reply #47 |
50. Thanks for that link |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
immoderate
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:43 PM Response to Reply #37 |
48. Some of it is. How else do we explain Chinese food deliveries? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
EVDebs
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:25 PM Response to Original message |
42. It's called a 'singularity' and the first microseconds of the Big Bang |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ulysses
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 07:44 PM Response to Original message |
49. no. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
killbotfactory
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 08:27 PM Response to Original message |
53. No, there isn't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Trajan
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 08:41 PM Response to Original message |
56. IS THERE AN ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF ID ???? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
0rganism
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 08:55 PM Response to Original message |
57. Apparently, the ID apologists don't understand the theory of evolution |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Trajan
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 09:04 PM Response to Reply #57 |
60. The use of the term ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
0rganism
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 09:25 PM Response to Reply #60 |
62. True enough, but we risk conflating "big bang" and "evolution" here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
quaker bill
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 10:41 PM Response to Original message |
64. I concur, get it out of the childrens classrooms |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
fshrink
![]() |
Wed Jan-19-05 11:54 PM Response to Original message |
66. "Intelligent", I don't know, but |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Thu Jun 13th 2024, 09:57 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC