Log In | Register
8 Votes
20 Comments
Intelligent Design's 8 Biggest Fails (Photo Gallery)
News Type: Other — Seeded on Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:34 AM EDT
Article Source: discovermagazine.comadvertisement
#7 Nylon Eating Bacteria
Published to:
- jedipunk's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Creation vs. Evolution
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (20)
- Creation vs. Evolution
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
13
3.5
{"commentId":10022164,"authorDomain":"jedipunk"}
Unfortunately, this is a flash slide show and the text is not able to be copied.
The slide show discusses mitochondria, blood clotting, mousetraps, nylon, horse evolution, etc.
{"commentId":10022164,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"jedipunk"}
- 5 votes
#1 - Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:36 AM EDT{"commentId":10039962,"authorDomain":"chrisb327"}
That's ok jedi. I don't need slides to know ID is ludicrous. Logic and common sense works just fine.
{"commentId":10039962,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"chrisb327"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":10042545,"authorDomain":"Jebus"}
We could have a group of aliens land right in front of the White House, bring out a time-lapse video of Earth showing evolution occurring for billions of years, and the ID proponents would simply say, "they're being coerced by the devil." I think they'll grasp at straws no matter what evidence is found.
{"commentId":10042545,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"Jebus"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":10045838,"authorDomain":"andrewdkrauss"}
The proponents of ID aren't even smart enough to find a sufficiently large gap to stick their God into. Whenever they make a tangible claim it seems it is disproved by actual scientists in short order.
{"commentId":10045838,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"andrewdkrauss"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10064378,"authorDomain":"vaca50"}
ID doesn't deserve to be called a theory. A hypothesis at best.
{"commentId":10064378,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"vaca50"}
- 3 votes
#2 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:43 PM EDT{"commentId":10064586,"authorDomain":"jedipunk"}
A hypothesis should be testable.
{"commentId":10064586,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"jedipunk"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":10065661,"authorDomain":"vaca50"}
Agreed. That's why I threw in that "at best". :) Left myself a little wiggle room.
The SWAG method used in defining the ID.
{"commentId":10065661,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"vaca50"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":10065316,"authorDomain":"lukeny"}
I love the progession of the mousetrap. I knew the mouse trap argument for ID was always a cop out, but that was a great illustration.
{"commentId":10065316,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"lukeny"}
- 1 vote
#3 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:42 PM EDT{"commentId":10067047,"authorDomain":"anthropos-1"}
The "original cell" could never have formed by chance, therefore, evolution has not occured. Yeah,I'm real stupid!
{"commentId":10067047,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"anthropos-1"}
#4 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:49 PM EDT{"commentId":10067104,"authorDomain":"anthropos-1"}
The "original cell" could never have formed by chance----EVER! Therefore, evolution did not occur. Yeah, I'm the stupid one.
{"commentId":10067104,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"anthropos-1"}
#5 - Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:51 PM EDT{"commentId":10071952,"authorDomain":"jedipunk"}
Evolution is not about the creation of the first cell, that is abiogenesis. Evolution is about how life became diverse.
{"commentId":10071952,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"jedipunk"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":10078825,"authorDomain":"ringowolf76"}
I can't view the slide-show, shame I probably enjoy it.
I believe in "intelligent design", but I call intelligent design doesn't sound at all like what most people think of when they think of it. I don't know if that's because the concept of I.D. has been hijacked by the Creationist, or if my understanding of what I.D. is supposed to be incorrect.
My thought of I.D. is guided evolution.
{"commentId":10078825,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"ringowolf76"}
#6 - Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:26 PM EDT{"commentId":10080087,"authorDomain":"jedipunk"}
Well, when you learn that a rabbit has to eat the equivalent of a "turd" vitamin (Cecotrope) in order to absorb nutrients that cannot be got from the first pass through the intestines, you begin to question how intelligent the design is.
{"commentId":10080087,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"jedipunk"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10080901,"authorDomain":"chrisb327"}
My thought of I.D. is guided evolution.
That begs the question: Who does the guiding? Sorry, but ID (much like it's creationism cousin) is thoroughly refuted by science.
{"commentId":10080901,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"chrisb327"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10081913,"authorDomain":"ringowolf76"}
That's only if science and god are mutually exclusive. What if god setup natural (physics, etc.) that science works to discover?
Even Proff. Michio Kaku said that when he working on some mathematical/physic theorem and he finds himself lost/stick he asks himself "If I were God how would I want this to work?". Science shouldn't be anti-god, god isn't anti-science.
{"commentId":10081913,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"ringowolf76"}
{"commentId":10099475,"authorDomain":"chrisb327"}
That's only if science and god are mutually exclusive.
They are! Science is based on facts. God is based on myth.
. What if god setup natural (physics, etc.) that science works to discover?
"...if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a god. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."---Carl Sagan
Science shouldn't be anti-god, god isn't anti-science.
This is based on the erroneous assumption that there is a God to begin with. However, there is not!
{"commentId":10099475,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"chrisb327"}
{"commentId":10120427,"authorDomain":"anthropos-1"}
"Evolution is not about the creation of the first cell, that is abiogenesis. Evolution is about how life became diverse."
I don't know why I bother anymore---- but, If abiogenisis is impossible (which it is within the confines of THIS universe)--(Quantum theories not with standing)-----Then, there are "other" explanations for diversity. If the putative original cell could not form by chance with the extremely limited time frame given--- then how could the incredible diversity that we see EVER occur by evolution? I'm not asking--- this is rhetorical.
{"commentId":10120427,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"anthropos-1"}
#7 - Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:17 PM EDT{"commentId":10137735,"authorDomain":"tim-little"}
Sorry Mori, but abiogenesis is wholly plausible, as all experimental observations and testing have demonstrated.
What aspect of cell formation could NOT have occurred by chemical means?
{"commentId":10137735,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"tim-little"}
{"commentId":10193438,"authorDomain":"anthropos-1"}
I will never understand the recalcitrance of so many brilliant people to the notion that time and chance could never allow for the formation of the putative orginal cell. It is a laptop formed all by itself on the surface of Mars--- there is no fossil record of it's bit by bit completion, just the fully formed laptop, functioning, humming. Of course I'm the idiot for suggesting to my fellow astronauts that maybe some intelligence put it here!
{"commentId":10193438,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"anthropos-1"}
#8 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:05 PM EDT{"commentId":10196592,"authorDomain":"jedipunk"}
That may be how you perceive evolutionary theory, but you are incorrect.
First and foremost evolutionary theory is not a creation theory. Different field of science.
{"commentId":10196592,"threadId":"699285","contentId":"3373657","authorDomain":"jedipunk"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"699285","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
