Story Comments
Posted by: Wolfie2007 7 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
20%
Wolfie20077 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Check this out but be careful smithichie you could learn something new.
Reply
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/-
83%
smithichie7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The only thing new about creationism is the name change to intelligent design.
Reply
http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscre...-
33%
Wolfie20077 months ago
-
50%
Mutainia7 months ago
-
100%
smithichie7 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you familiar with the Stanley Miller experiment? While just building blocks of life were created with this famous experiment, if a similar type of experiment resulted in life, I wouldn't label it as coming about by Intelligent Design.
Reply
If on the other hand, those cells come about requiring human assistance, like artifical cell membranes for example, then I would label it Intelligent Design.-
0%
Mutainia6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm familiar with that experiment. The "building blocks of life". You just believe jostling or convection of those atoms will, given time and chance, cause those building blocks to make something on par with a PC, which still isn't nearly as complex as what is demonstrated in this video.
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not time and chance, time and natural selection. Chance of course plays a roll in any history, both positive and negative, but you don't get DNA by mere chance alone.
Reply
Don't mistakenly assume the first life had to have the capabilities as demonstrated in your video, indeed, the evidence points to it taking billions of years of evolution before such complexity was possible.
On a side note, such complexity is further evidence AGAINST design, not for it. It would be like opening the hood of your car to change a spark plug and finding not 4 to choose from, but millions- when 4 would do the job.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
smithichie7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Enlighten me.
Reply
If your 'intelligent designer' is as obvious as the Earth being round, why has ID been proven in a court of law, to be nothing more than religion, certainly not science and in fact creationism under a new name? Flat Earthers can't teach their beliefs in public schools and neither can Creationists, this isn't a coincedence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_A...-
-
Neutral
smithichie6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What's your point? No I haven't seen Expelled, but what did Ben Stein present that they didn't have access to in the Dover Trial? Why should I trust a movie over the results of a major trial decision?
Reply
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand, admitedly without seeing it, Stein's argument with evolution is that you can't say how life originated. How did it begin?
If true, it's just a silly straw man argument. Evolution doesn't address HOW life began, evolution just says that life changes over time.-
-
100%
smithichie6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, it WOULD be exactly like that since both movies fantasy.
Reply
Since you did not correct me, I must assume that my take on Stein's movie was right, that it's based on the straw man argument that evolution doesn't say how life began.
DUH, the very defintion of evolution tells us that. We don't know how life began, if you wish to insert magic as the cause, it becomes a religious issue and not a matter for public schools.
SO, what am I missing by not viewing Stein's propaganda?
If he had anything that I AM missing-WHY didn't he present at the Dover Pa trial in which Creationism was severely trounced?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_A...-
-
100%
smithichie6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nearly 4 billion years of evolution IS quite a long time, but it's not eternal.
Reply
Comparing time to a god is like comparing gravity to a god and just as meaningless. Gravity effects everything in the universe, we would not exist without it, but that is just the nature of gravity, not the intent of gravity. Gravity, like time can't have intent because they are not conscious. Things without conscious strike me as rather impersonal things to worship. Praying to gravity has zero effect, asking 'time' for an hour of your life back has zero effect.-
-
100%
smithichie6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now is your turn to explain this better. How is time and chance the same as a god and how do I hope for things that are easily observable? It is pointless to hope for time as it is to hope for gravity. Chance? Besides being my lovable dog's name, is as observable as gravity, just flip a coin.
Reply
Natural selection, a key element of evolution, is the opposite of chance, by the way.-
Neutral
Mutainia6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Smtih: Not time and chance, time and natural selection.
Reply
Mut: What selected the atoms to make, say, RNA?
Smith: Chance of course plays a roll in any history, both positive and negative, but you don't get DNA by mere chance alone.
Mut: TELL me about it. :)
Smith: Don't mistakenly assume the first life had to have the capabilities as demonstrated in your video, indeed, the evidence points to it taking billions of years of evolution before such complexity was possible.
Mut: Evidence?
Smith: On a side note, such complexity is further evidence AGAINST design, not for it. It would be like opening the hood of your car to change a spark plug and finding not 4 to choose from, but millions- when 4 would do the job.
Mut: Hey, looks pretty fantastic to me. I'd like to see YOU make a sperm cell from scratch like God does. -
Neutral
Mutainia6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sm: Now is your turn to explain this better. How is time and chance the same as a god and how do I hope for things that are easily observable?
Reply
Mut: You have to take it on faith, like you do with believing that time was always here since "something can't come from nothing".
Smith: It is pointless to hope for time as it is to hope for gravity.
Mut: Then, why are you hoping?
Smith: Chance? Besides being my lovable dog's name, is as observable as gravity, just flip a coin.
Mut: And you will end up with a laptop on the Desert AFTER a really wild dust storm, given time, got it. :)
Smith: Natural selection, a key element of evolution, is the opposite of chance, by the way.
Mut: Natural selection is what you are putting faith in, I see.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
CactusAnnie
ForrestPhelps
aceofspades1
bruhaha
GWHayduke
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.