Intelligent Design is not creationism

I said in earlier posts that AP, multiverse and sting theory are all speculations not yet confirmed. Speculating based on these speculations is certainly entertaining but not likely to prove anything definitive."

As if ignorant chance wasn't speculative and had been confirmed...

Too funny...


Quote from james_bond_3rd:

First of all, I don't know why you're such a fan of Steven Weinberg. Do you know what he did to get his Nobel Prize? It was not about AP or multiverse. I don't see the connection between Weinberg's discussion of cosmological constant and ID. Can you educate us on why there is a connection?

I said in earlier posts that AP, multiverse and string theory are all speculations not yet confirmed. Speculating based on these speculations is certainly entertaining but not likely to prove anything definitive. I am very puzzled why you take these unconfirmed speculations as evidence of ID.

Most of the scientific speculations in the past had been proven wrong.

If you want to speculate, it is certainly equally valid to speculate about a spiritual universe. Too bad you can't see the irony in it.
More...
 
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

First of all, I don't know why you're such a fan of Steven Weinberg. Do you know what he did to get his Nobel Prize? It was not about AP or multiverse. I don't see the connection between Weinberg's discussion of cosmological constant and ID. Can you educate us on why there is a connection?

I said in earlier posts that AP, multiverse and string theory are all speculations not yet confirmed. Speculating based on these speculations is certainly entertaining but not likely to prove anything definitive. I am very puzzled why you take these unconfirmed speculations as evidence of ID.

Most of the scientific speculations in the past had been proven wrong.

If you want to speculate, it is certainly equally valid to speculate about a spiritual universe. Too bad you can't see the irony in it.
More...


This has to be the craziest shit ever. I am not a fan of anyone here. I respond to questions with answers. I am not even saying weinberg was right or wrong. I just said if the subject was so silly why did a nobel prize winning physicist address it. I actually have read up on the cosmological constant argument and understand that many physicists do not even know how to calculate. The whole reason I brought it up was to show that the AP argument is a serious argument addressed by Physicists around the world. it is not just something made up by bible thumpers.

Yet the rational men here like the intellectuall poser like 2cents, call names and avoid answering questions cause they realize they will eventually have to admit the universe looks designed.

I am done with this thread - I do find it amusing that the anti design guys are the ones calling names and acting like children but I have other things to do besides educate children, I already have my own.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I said in earlier posts that AP, multiverse and sting theory are all speculations not yet confirmed. Speculating based on these speculations is certainly entertaining but not likely to prove anything definitive."

As if ignorant chance wasn't speculative and had been confirmed...

Too funny...
More...

You're ignorant. That's not speculative.

Random mutations is not speculative and has been confirmed by many studies. Here is one example of such a study:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/148/4/1667

"Rates of Spontaneous Mutation
John W. Drakea, Brian Charlesworthb, Deborah Charlesworthb, and James F. Crowc
a Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-2233,
b Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland, United Kingdom,
c Genetics Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Corresponding author: John W. Drake, Laboratory of Molecular Genetics E3-01, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2233, drake@niehs.nih.gov (E-mail).

Rates of spontaneous mutation per genome as measured in the laboratory are remarkably similar within broad groups of organisms but differ strikingly among groups. Mutation rates in RNA viruses, whose genomes contain ca. 104 bases, are roughly 1 per genome per replication for lytic viruses and roughly 0.1 per genome per replication for retroviruses and a retrotransposon. Mutation rates in microbes with DNA-based chromosomes are close to 1/300 per genome per replication; in this group, therefore, rates per base pair vary inversely and hugely as genome sizes vary from 6 x 103 to 4 x 107 bases or base pairs. Mutation rates in higher eukaryotes are roughly 0.1–100 per genome per sexual generation but are currently indistinguishable from 1/300 per cell division per effective genome (which excludes the fraction of the genome in which most mutations are neutral). It is now possible to specify some of the evolutionary forces that shape these diverse mutation rates."
 
You don't know that the changes are not by design...

Your conclusion is a speculative one.


Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You're ignorant. That's not speculative.

Random mutations is not speculative and has been confirmed by many studies. Here is one example of such a study:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/148/4/1667

"Rates of Spontaneous Mutation
John W. Drakea, Brian Charlesworthb, Deborah Charlesworthb, and James F. Crowc
a Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-2233,
b Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland, United Kingdom,
c Genetics Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Corresponding author: John W. Drake, Laboratory of Molecular Genetics E3-01, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2233, drake@niehs.nih.gov (E-mail).

Rates of spontaneous mutation per genome as measured in the laboratory are remarkably similar within broad groups of organisms but differ strikingly among groups. Mutation rates in RNA viruses, whose genomes contain ca. 104 bases, are roughly 1 per genome per replication for lytic viruses and roughly 0.1 per genome per replication for retroviruses and a retrotransposon. Mutation rates in microbes with DNA-based chromosomes are close to 1/300 per genome per replication; in this group, therefore, rates per base pair vary inversely and hugely as genome sizes vary from 6 x 103 to 4 x 107 bases or base pairs. Mutation rates in higher eukaryotes are roughly 0.1–100 per genome per sexual generation but are currently indistinguishable from 1/300 per cell division per effective genome (which excludes the fraction of the genome in which most mutations are neutral). It is now possible to specify some of the evolutionary forces that shape these diverse mutation rates."
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You don't know that the changes are not by design...

Your conclusion is a speculative one.
More...
or by santa for that matter... 'design' sounds pretty weak a speculation in comparison don't u find zizzz? unless u mean random design of course :p :p :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top