The Empty CageThis cage is empty… for now. Since God created everything by just “placing” it on Earth, we are welcoming Him to create another creature by just magically “putting” it in this cage. We look forward to seeing what He comes up with.
Intelligent Design Zoo
Isn’t intelligent design more like evolution + god made it happen?
Funny anyway.
lol
Yeah “God” and evolution. Or just evolution and there’s no such thing as God, Santa Clause, or hover boards.
Funny ad.
How can we search flat on rent,Rented Flats, Rent Properties in India apartments for rent, homes for rent, rented property, flats on rent, 2bhk flat on rent, 3bhk flat on rent, 1bhk flat on rent in cheap and best price?
Yar, not intelligent design. This is more like creationism. Though… putting a cage down and expecting God to act like a circus monkey and perform for you, and you don’t get results? WOW!
Nope, Intelligent Design is against evolution too. Intelligent Design IS Creationism but with web2.0 markup 😉
The ID argument is based on the idea of ‘irreducible complexity’ meaning some things are just too complex/useful to have had a non-functioning half-developed state.
The Evolutionary counter argument was “Actually, all the examples you provided CAN be reduced further, and who says 1/2 an eye is useless? Ask someone with 20% vision if they’d rather be blind…”
Of course, the Creationists counter argument for the cage would be… “Ok, lets put a pile of dirt in the cage and see how long it takes evolution to build us a monkey” 😉
about 5 billion years, lots of light, water, and a whole more lot of dirt.
ID is really an evolution (pun intended) of creationism. Proponents of ID would maintain that it’s not at all affiliated with any religion whatsoever, be it Christianity (which, obviously, they actually are affiliated with) or otherwise. They do this because of the United States’ policy of “seperation of Church and State,” which would prevent the teaching of Creationism in schools: It would be perfectly acceptable to teach that a non-divine “Creator” shaped our universe, by sheer coincidence, in the exact way that Genesis describes it. ID is really more of an exploitation of a political loophole than it is an actual science.
Science is when we shape our ideas to fit scientific law. Pseudoscience is when we shape scientific law to fit our ideas.
I went to a Catholic School and I’m religious, but I don’t see why it’s so important for stupid religious people to analyze God so closely, especially when, you know, he’s got that ‘mysterious ways’ thing going on. And the fact that the bible says ‘don’t pretend to speak for God’. So, you know, I trust science, and I’m willing to accept evolution and God without giving too much thought to it, or going wacky insane about public schools like fatty Americans.
In my Catholic school, they introduced the concept of intelligent design like this: If you were flying a plane over an island and you saw an S.O.S. written it is possible that the wind coincidently blew that meaning in the sand, but it would be more reasonable to assume that a person drew it. I had a pretty hard blow to my fucking faith right there when I found out some people can’t distinguish between the Bible and Gillagan’s Island. Well, I’m off the ponder the miracle of Radio Coconuts
To ‘Some guy blah blah’:
Dumbass.
An appropriate rejoinder would be to put a test tube filled with amino acids and an electrical source and wait for the first self-relicating organism to appear; or a large container with fruit flies and a radiation source and wait for the new “super flyâ€Â.
You dolt.
Now, stop conflating Creationism with ID. Most ID proponents I know accept common ancestry, just not driven by Darwinian (19th Century ignorance) mechanisms.
“An appropriate rejoinder would be to put a test tube filled with amino acids and an electrical source and wait for the first self-relicating organism to appear”
The funniest thing about this comment is that abiogenesis experiments actually do this. They have certainly created complex organic chemicals out of simple organic chemicals.
They have, but none of them have sprung to life. 😛
Anyone who thinks that ID is not Creationism in every way but name needs to go do their research. And I don’t mean in the Bible, for you fundies out there.
“The funniest thing about this comment is that abiogenesis experiments actually do this. They have certainly created complex organic chemicals out of simple organic chemicals.”
Ah, I see that I’m dealing with drooling imbeciles here, so I’ll type slower and use smaller words…
Abiogenesis experiments (initiated and controlled by intelligent agents [sigh]) have demonstrated no such thing. Either you are ignorant, dishonest, or both (which is likely). The best that they have achieved (again, under the initiation, control, and fervent intervention of intelligent agents: scientists) is to produce inert sludge. And in an abiogenesis scenarios you must eliminate even simple organic compounds and any Teleological intervention. Good luck, you’ll need it. Face it, Biogenesis is all science has ever observed: life comes from life… always. In short, abiogenesis is a myth perpetuated by Darwinian fundamentalists in an attempt to keep their 19th century creation myth propped up. That said, most Darwinian mystics are smart enough and sometimes honest enough to admit that all abiogenesis experiments have failed miserably. Here is some actual research which might help you (warning: big words in some of this):
www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3209
www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=98
www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_iconstouch111501.htm
If ID is Creationism, what am I going to tell my agnostic, Jewish and Deist friends who are staunch ID proponents? What Creation account is ID supposed to be, exactly? You see, I’ve actually done my research which is why I support ID rather than knock down convenient strawman versions of it.
Go read some books, kids.
“If ID is Creationism, what am I going to tell my agnostic, Jewish and Deist friends who are staunch ID proponents? What Creation account is ID supposed to be, exactly? You see, I’ve actually done my research which is why I support ID rather than knock down convenient strawman versions of it.”
Regarding your “friends”, I think you’re inventing them to help your side.
Done your research? Is that so? So then, you’re a supporter of the Discovery Institute? Have an opinion on the “Wedge Document”? You’re a supporter of the pseudo-scientific concept of “irreducible complexity”?
Maybe you need to up up a book yourself, kid. And why not register an account here, speaking of straw men. Shows you’re not just a troll.
“Regarding your “friendsâ€Â, I think you’re inventing them to help your side.”
Hah! Well this would demonstrate that you are ignorant, dishonest or both. Evidently you haven’t heard of David Berlinski, Michael Denton, David Springer, or John Davison, to name just a few agnostic ID proponents. You see, what you need to learn is that ID is simply the modest notion that design is empirically detectable in biological systems. So it seems that you’ve bought into the party line drivel of your political ideologues and conflated the science with it’s possible implications.
In fact I do have an opinion about the insignificant Wedge document (of one man – Phillip Johnson). You can find out all about it here:
www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/discovery_institute_s_wedge_document_how.html
www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349
Irreducible Complexity is “pseudo-scientific”??? LOL! How bout you detail for me the published research which has confirmed how either a direct, or indirect Darwinian pathway has led to the formation of irreducible molecular machinery. Mkay? Just-So stories and wishful speculations will not be counted. Got that? Write that down. In the meantime, I will make the logical inference to a design blueprint (or front-loaded algorithm) when I encounter specified complex cellular machinery which phD’s in Engineering and Biochemistry can’t figure out. Mkay?
Tell you what, I’ll register an account here when you present something other than strawmen and regurgitated party-line nonsense, for me to refute.
And I will actually take your arguments seriously when you start quoting from REAL SCIENTIFIC sources.
Discovery Institute and their Evolution News? Please!
David Berlinski? Sorry, his Ph.D in philosophy does not impress me. Doing many peer reviewed scientific articles lately? Hmm, looks lot not too many.
www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=David%20Berlinski&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all
Michael Denton, the former former Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute? That same group again….
David Springer, aka DaveScot of www.uncommondescent.com? Not much of a biological science background there, and blogging with an avowed Discovery Institute shill?
And is this the same John Davison who can’t seem to get his “semi-meiotic hypothesis” tested because the scientific community is against him? Doesn’t sound too creditable to me.
www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000639-p-2.html
And regarding your LOL’ing on irreducible complexity, why not give me even 1 peer reviewed research paper published in a scientific journal (no Discovery Institute).
I leave off with the Dover trial, where the court found that “Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”
Got any more pseudo-science hackery? Oh, wait, I know, insult me! Yes, ME! Don’t forget to call me stupid. Oh, and assume my political affiliation too. And insult it.
Guess you already knew how to do that though.
Ok guys… lol
Articles never get you anywhere someone as stupid as “you noobs”; thats the last time I’ll use the word stupid.
I will just explain it in the best way I can, This most probably won’t be successful. But as simply as I’m going to put it, “Irreducible Complexity” is a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of evolution. By god believers hoping to bring scientific bases to their belief. There was never anything half there.. or incomplete. It started very simple but very complete. Then it changes and builds my casual and inevitable miss replications, either good or horrible. This is caused by nothing much to environmental pressures. Eyes only started as light sensing cells… and I’m not getting into that.
Abiogenesis experiments don’t show much and couldn’t.. but is does show a change and that is evolution. The experiments have intelligent people replicating real environments. Maybe or not that environment was created by a god. The intelligence that was behind the experiments has nothing to do with proving that it had to be an intelligent design.
Now I would like to see a link from you that explains your specific versions of ID and Irreducible Complexity. If I got you wrong I would like to correct myself.
jizzyjesus: No worries, I was not trying to teach “you n00bs” anything. It’s obvious he is far too gone. Just amusing (CLICK ADS) myself (CLICK ADS) with a (CLICK ADS) flamewar, I suppose. (CLICK ADS!) 😉
Hah! I lol’d d. I’ve never seen this one before.