http://www.physorg.com/news10984.html

First, why are there no Jews proposing intelligent design? Genesis is their book. Second, there are many creation myths among the world"s people. Why should only one be chosen? What"s wrong with the others? Third, the proponents seem to all be Christians who believe that the Bible is literally true. If so, why aren"t they out healing people as Jesus did, and as Jesus promised that His followers would? Creationists will deny that Christians today have the power to heal people (blatantly false,from my personal experience and that of thousands of charismatic Christians worldwide) and thus deny their basic tenet that the Bible is entirely true.

Chicagou

The proper place for discussions of the intelligent design is in Sunday School, not in schools where children are or should be taught to think as well as being introduced to facts that can be proven. People throughout the world especially those who are not too educated or informed are inclined to believe in all manner of nonsense, for example, the Face on Mars. In my opinion, ID belongs in that group.

Hi,

Did you know that there is an entire section in this forum dedicated to the discussion of Creation - Intelligent Design - Evolutioin?

Please see here:

PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> General discussions -> Creation / Evolution

Link:
Creation/Evolution

Quite active too.

Flaws Found in Intelligent Design Theory.

In an announcement sure to rock the scientific world, Dr. Jack Harvey, a noted biochemist, claims he has found several flaws in the scientifically regarded theory of "intelligent design".

"There are several aspects to the theory that just don't fit together", Dr. Harvey claims. "Penguins, for example. Why would any intelligent being design such a bird, unless as a cruel joke". Harvey claims that the birds awkward motions and inability to fly are not intelligent at all. "In fact, Dr. Harvey continues, "this bird is the work of a total moron".

Dr Harvey also claims that mosquitos, flies and many forms of bacteria are also not intelligently designed. "Not to mention ostiches", Harvey says, "Have you ever seen a more ridiculous looking animal?"

Harvey claims that even human beings have faults which a truly intelligent being would have solved before being placed on Earth. "Some humans are fine", he said, "while others tend toward obesity or develop some sort of illness. A truly intelligent creator would not have allowed such discrepancies".

Dr. Rob Weinstein, a respected molecular biologist, disagreed with Harvey's statements. "Harvey has no idea what he's talking about", Weinstein stated, "even the smartest of us make little mistakes. To err is human!"

Some scientists say that Havey's claims bolster the ridiculous idea of "evolution".

Hi,

The issue for Intelligent Design is not whether there is a Designer (like God) - but whether something is of intelligent design. If it can be determined by examining the life of and the physical make up of a mosquito, that it has a purpose, that it has design - then their theory is correct based on that alone. The issue is design and whether it is intelligent or not - the issue is not the Designer.

I can't imagine what purpose the mosquito serves - but I do know that a purpose has been discovered for just about every creature known to man.

There is not intelligent design at all. The main resaon for that is that there is no god. It is incredible that in the XXI century in one of the most develovep countries of the world people continue to believe in totems. For mi there is no diference between Jupiter, Budda, Alah or whatsoever.

Guess what! If the theory that the differences between animals arose by evolution is false, then guess what! ID must be true.

Just the fact that the theory of evolution might be false proves that ID might be true. And the fact that ID might be true, qualifies it as a theory.

There are ways to mathematically prove ID to be a true theory! If you can prove that the probability of the first living bacteria evolving from the elements is zero, then ID must be correct.

There is a web site that proves this point (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html).

It says that the all the particles (strings) in the universe react a certain average number of times per interval of time. If you multipy this rate of interactions by the amount of time intervals in the history of the universe, you get the total number of reactions.

So then you compare the probability of a bacteria forming to the total number of reactions.

The minimum number of proteins that the first bacteria had to evolve with is 100. They found that just 100 proteins had a probability of forming 1 out of more that 10 times the total amount of reactions in the universe.

This means that if every reaction in the universe was happening at the very location of the first bacteria, the universe would have to live 10 times longer than it already has in order for it to happen!!!!

Which means that the probability of the first life form forming on its own is zero!!!!

Now this doesn't mean that ID is true. The theory that the differences between animals arose by evolution is still a possibility. It just means that the first life forms must have came here by ID or random displacement from a planet inhabited with life already.

Now, if the probability of the first life coming from another planet is zero, the ID must be true!!!!!!

All those people that say that ID is not a theory don't realize that ID can be proven to be true!

Enderbean719,
Those web sites that publish the 'odds' and 'proofs' know as much about probability and science as you do.............................................bluntly SFA.

The extraordinary leaps in logic you make to 'prove' ID are incredible and entirely implausible.

Evolution is not a force or guiding hand; it is the result of the circumstances that unravel for living things. Evolution does not force changes; it is the abstract concept that we use to describe the progression of changes in the living and near living such as viruses. Equally, it is not 'Darwin's' evolution; he was the first to describe the 'flow' of life in a published book.

Life on this planet is the outcome of billions of years and it hasn't finished yet.


Physfan

Dang! I didn't know they were that smart!

Thanks for being frank with me, Sally! (JK)

I know it will take a long time to do, but could you point out my and the websites errors?

It is a commonly know fact in mathematical statistics that the probability of something happening is equal to the 100% minus the probability of it not happening.

If, in some 5 brane universe, we were able to prove that the probability of evolution by chance is equal to zero...... then it would mean the the probability of evolution by god is equal to 100%.

I'm not here to mathematically prove it, just to inform people that there is a chance that someday we will prove evolution by chance false.

The fact that evolution by god is a possibility guarantees its right to be a theory.

Enderbean:

by quick analogy, if a lottery has a 1 in 60 million chance of being won - would you have to play 60 million times to win? No, you only need to play once, and get lucky.

Your chances of winning goes up with each ticket (or, in other words, the chance of life arriving spontaneously increases with time), but you can still win with just one ticket.

It doesn't matter if 50 billion years was necessary before life became 'likely', the fact was that life was 'possible' the whole time.

hello, all -

there are many many patently lousy aspects of human design which surely could not be called "intelligent". The winners of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry pointed out an excellent one. An enzyme named "E3" fails quite often in the process of decoupling the helicase enzyme (i.e. unraveling DNA for encoding during fertilization). This results in over 60% of ALL conceptions spontaneously aborting throughout human existence. It's a wonder how we are on this planet and still manage to make such a mess of things.

Further, the implanted zygote promotes a largely immune response throughout some if not all of the pregnancy. Pre-ecclampsia or full ecclampsia still kills 7% of all birth mothers during the last part of the 3rd trimester (in developing countries). Advanced countries have lowered the incidence of mortality to about 0.3%.

The human body is it's own worst enemy w/r/t head trauma. The very lifesaving capacity of the human body to inflame tissue to begin the healing process is largely responsible for the bulk of deaths related to head trauma - duh, you can't swell a tissue (the brain) inside a closed cavity (the skull).

These three examples of fundamental weaknesses in human design should suffice, but I could list lots more if you'd like.

Enderbean, I have not had a chance to go through that website extensively yet, but from a brief skim through I can see a few errors that make his result unreliable. He is assuming that each step in building a protein is completely independent of the other steps. I do not think that this is the case. And at any rate, he never provided any justification for making this assumption. He either did not properly think through his proof, or he didn't mention it because he couldn't justify it. Anyways, if I get some time to review it more thoroughly later I will post more.

In the beginning, Man was perfect. Interbreeding has caused the demise of our DNA.

That is an internally consistent theory. However, the social implications (which race is most pure?) are unpleasant.

As well, with that theory, we would expect a gradual degradation of the genome of the human species (as interbreeding continues). Do you have any proof that the genome of humans 1000 years ago are inferior to the genomes of today?

Interbreeding or race crossing is supposed to produce superior people not inferior. It is the only possibility of evolution for the human race now.

Intelligent design?

You gotta be intelligent to see it.

I have to ask where the different races came from originally. Anybody have a clue?

Interbreeding being a superior genetic choice is a good argument that the human genome is degrading. We know that muttization is good for dogs. Any proof that it's true in humans?

Enderbean: Ok, first thing first: You are talking about Biogenesis (Start of life) which is something different then the Evolution theory (development of life). These are two different theories, a common mistake made by every ID proponent that has not studied the subject. But, back to your quoted websites claim claim:


A few things that website forgot to include in its so called mathematical proof:

- It did not account for covalent bonding forces. These lower the amount of possible bonds, thereby increasing the chance to get bonds. (less letters in the alphabet increase the chance to randomly pick an understandable word, adding linquistic code to a language lowers the amount of options)

- It did not account for so called "parasitism" Where smaller combinations develop simutaniously, and maintain themselves, but by parasitising on each other they share common benefits and require less energy. Like Chemical catalysts. (

- It did not account for alternative options. It is just assuming there is only one workable solution. This is not true, there are countless options available that will result in a workable solution. After that, it does not matter anymore if the solution is effective or not as long as it works. (A car with six sided wheels instead of round wheels will also ride. Having more then one language increases the amount of sentences that can be formed)


About that SETI reference. He should consider a few options. An Extraterrestial communication might not use Base10 number coding, but Base 2 (binary) Base 3 or Base 12. In which case the noise that comes in can be easily transferred to a base10 code like the one common on earth. Although I would expect that they will use light for communication. Probably based upon the photonic emissions among the valentic bands of the most stable atom in the universe, Iron.