Intelligent Design For Dummies–Part 2. Intelligent Falling »
Posted By jigar435 6 months, 2 weeks ago in HumorEvangelical scientists have refuted gravity with a stupid Intelligent Falling theory.. A parody on the theory of Intelligent Falling..
Read Full Story at jigarbpatel.blogspot.com »
506 Views Share Story 120 Comments Report
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 120 (view all)
-
-
9%
Wolfie20076 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Learn or stay ignorant it's your choice. This article will keep you as dumb as a rock but that's your choice. Darwinism and evolution is the theory of the past and it's been disproved so why cling to a lie?
Reply
Check out this site and there are many others.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/-
-
100%
ForrestPhelps6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To: Wolfie2007
Reply
OK. I checked out your site. I will give it credit for doing a better job of presenting ID theory as science, but I thought it still fell short.
Would you care to look at this site
http://pandasthumb.org/
and give me your opinion? -
100%
vader826 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry wolfie, this site is yer another weak attempt to give creationism a scientific angle. These supposedly irreducibly complex organs, eyes for example can easily be expained through evolution. If one looks at flatworm eyes, then annelid eyes, then mollusk eyes, you can see a clear pattern of increasing complexity. The eyespots of flatworm can do little more than distinguish between light and dark, the eyes of segmented worms, annelids can see vague images , and cehpalopod mullosk's, such as octopuses, are very adavanced, being able to see color and are on par with vertebrate eyes. Molecular DNA evidence shows a direct evoutionary relationship between mollosks and annelids, this is further backed up by them sharing the same type of larvae, the trochophore. There are many other flaws witih intelligent design, how can vestigial structures be expained? Why do snakes and whales have hip bones? If you combine the fossil evidence and DNA evidence with the embryology evidence then evolution is the only valid explanation.
Reply -
100%
Tangent0016 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Evolution disproved? I must've missed that one. Do tell!
Reply
Most ID materials I've read (including the one you posted) posit ID as an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for, the evolutionary model.
You know, of course, that one of the leading proponents of ID, Michael Behe, accepts the majority of evolutionary science, except in certain biomolecular instances, yes? Behe accepts that organisms have evolved over time into the species set we currently see. His hypothesis has to do with microscopic cell structures such as the bacterial flagellum which he asserts is irreducibly complex and therefore MUST have been designed.
What ID researchers are looking for are such examples of specified complexity. Where they fail as far as science is concerned, is a test to determine absolutely that, say, a proposed irreducibly complex structure could NOT have arisen through naturalistic mechanisms. Behe, for example, discards out-of-hand known evolutionary processes such as exaptation (his prized flagellum is remarkable similar to bacterial excretory structures) and bio-molecular scaffolding in his accounting for the 'irreducibly complex'.
What is most telling is that I know more than you, Wolfie, about BOTH ID and evolution. You seem to post links to materials without even bothering to read them. -
-
-
100%
quackpot6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well over 99.9% of professional medical scientists disagree with your contention that "the theory of Darwinism and evolution is the theory of the past and it's been disproved".
Reply
In fact, if you open nearly any current Genetics Journal or Cancer Journal you will find several articles that refer to this theory or expand upon it.
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user35 Replies
-
100%
pokydoke6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just because you don't have an answer to a question doesn't mean there isn't one. Just because you can't fully justify Gravity with math doesn't mean god is the answer, there might be another answer and one needs to search until that answer is found. If god is the answer then so be it but it still needs to be proven. ID just assumes god is the answer without further search, bad science, bad thinking.
Reply-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user27 Replies
-
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
-
83%
RickyDawkins6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CAPECORAL MUSES: So why not share each "theory" with young minds?
Reply
In order to "teach creationism", the government would have to decide which is the One True Creationism on which the curriculum should be based.
When a creationist asserts that "the butterfly, fern, rose and fish appear suddenly and fully developed" in the Cambrian Explosion, and a paleontologist gives an accurate account of Cambrian fossils (which contain no butterflies, ferns, roses or "fully developed" fish), they are not "looking at the same evidence".
Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise? (S.J.Gould)
How can we ask a science teacher to teach in the morning that "Archaeopteryx has the anatomy of a modern bird" and in the afternoon to teach the detailed facts about the anatomy of Archaeopteryx? Inevitably, the children will find out in the afternoon that she was lying in the morning!
It seems unreasonable to waste any time teaching something which the teachers know to be false and the children will discover is false.
If we allow one subject, creationism, to be taught against the consensus of experts and the testimony of the facts, then what arguments would we have against teaching astrology alongside astronomy, crystal healing alongside medicine, Holocaust denial alongside history, Flat Earth beliefs alongside geography, and so forth?
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Teach_Both_Theori... -
-
86%
antibrainwasher6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You heard it here first, Propeller heads, Woofffee announcing that science is dead.
Reply
Long live ignorance, long live superstition, long live lockstepping ignorant seig heiling loyalists, rebel repugs without a clue. Logic is dead, Rationality is dead, objectivism is dead, long live cowardice.
Welcome to the dark ages. Next time you get a cold Wooffee, ask a barber to bleed you. -
-
-
100%
antibrainwasher6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why is it that the same dic-heads that support torture, vote to make the rich richer, support Dick Cheney, and who make up the core of the party of cons, insist the earth is 5,000 years old. The half life of uranium is 4.47 billion years, it it trivial to date the earth using that technique as well as others, I know cons believe in the hydrogen bomb, using uranium fission, or fusion, its con-fusion. On every issue, it loyality and lockstepping seig heiling anti-science anti rational anti logic, relativistic cowardice....I give you the party of cons.
Reply
The loyality test for repugs is suspension of disbelief, loyality before rationality, make the rich richer is the only principle repug cons have. -
100%
smithichie6 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CC-"Again I say you are confusing Creationism with Intelligent Design. They are not the same".
Reply
Here are some excerpts from the Dover Pa Evolution vs. ID trial.
-For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.
-A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.
-The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.
-The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
-ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_A...-
75%
beavith16 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you don't prove science in a court. its the wrong venue.
Reply
i'm reading this whole thread in shocked disbelief.
ID is a weak hypothesis. based on facts presented, when it hits logical or evidential difficulty, it gets reduced to 'somebody made it'. deus ex machina is not a proof of anything.
Lysenkoism is also on the trash heap.
the evidence supporting the hypothesis of evolution is so strong, its now the theory of evolution
why would anyone present ID or Lysenkoism to kids in anything other than a historical context as failed sideroads -no- distractions in the march of science?
now. should evidence be presented that weakens evolution's inside track, -well- that's the way science works. right now, there is nothing that's even in the same ballpark as evolution.
this is a non-thread. fail.
-
-
-
-
100%
beavith16 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
still working on it.
Reply
what is 'time'? what is 'mass'? what is 'charge'? we don't have to know what it is to still find it useful. insight and definition only come with understanding. just to say that 'god made it so' is defeat of any intellectual basis for us figuring out 'why' and 'what for'.
you must consider that we've been working on these terms, with the current understanding, for only the last 100-150 years.
if we can agree that modern man has been around for 12,000 years, 150 years is a blink of an eye. should we survive, the next 12,000 years ought to be a blast!
-
-
Neutral
jigar4356 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Even if I try to take a neutral view on both the theories, gravity is the only theory that appears perfect and flawless.. If IF is true, then why haven't the ID guys come up with a single proof for that.. Just because you can't explain a natural phenomenon, doesn't mean it is something supernatural or the work of God.. It just means that we are stupid..
Reply -
100%
beavith16 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm bringing CapeCoralM's comment out. the thread is almost unreadable without some sort of propeeler wordwrap function.
Reply
CCM say:
That is the problem isn't it/ The who or what? However it can be argued as I have that A polor bears fur is white not because of random mutation or survival of the fittest but rather to some sort of "reason" or "intelligent design" have you. The same for the snow fox or the arctic grouse. The Grouse is white in winter and brown in summer. That hardly seems probable in terms of random mutation and survival of the fittest. The cheetah is a cat. Did it become the hunter it did from random mutation or through specialization based on a "need" that was met through some sort of "design modification" and not random mutation?"
what you are arguing is called Lysenkoism. it rationalizes causation of living structures. looking at it like that shows that ID and Lysenkoism are natural allies. and both wrong. neither can predict anything. -
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.