Intelligent Design questions

[carlsbadd]

I agree with this as you know.

I would only add that people who are truly scientific should also hold out the possibility that Science might just give Creationism its underpinnings when it is all said and done.

The fact that many would refuse this as a legitimate possibility yet hold fast to the Big Bang theory as the answer to the beginning shows a bias in the community that supports scientific endeavors.

A true scientist would not say ID will "never" be proven as did Liberty a page or two ago. Of course Liberty says Creationism can not be proven as it is not a testable hypothesis. I say Creationism is proven most every day. And we could go 30 pages from here with arguments from either side, each having weight.

I endore this post.

Hey, I ain't the brightest guy and I admit that but, I have done a fair share at looking at this from both sides.

I have taken the time to read some books on the subject and both sides have good points.

It's quite possible that we discover that ID does exist through scientific methods, wouldn't that be something!

It's also possible that it doesn't but to rule it out entirely is being closed minded to me.

[AlexRS]

I endore this post.

Hey, I ain't the brightest guy and I admit that but, I have done a fair share at looking at this from both sides.

I have taken the time to read some books on the subject and both sides have good points.

It's quite possible that we discover that ID does exist through scientific methods, wouldn't that be something!

It's also possible that it doesn't but to rule it out entirely is being closed minded to me.

I think in general looking at this as Science vs Religion is inappropriate.

The Skins24's Einstein quote says that very well. It is not about one versus the other.

Sciences deals with HOW

Religion deals with WHY

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

"HOW without WHY is lame, WHY without HOW is blind"

[Xameil]

Personally, I like how my friend stated it in college.

"We are all an experiment in god's little petri dish"

:laugh:

[Prosperity]

Are you saying logic has no place in the realm of Science?

Oh my I am sick AND dizzy already..... :doh:

don't be simple minded logic is a part of everything, here is your straight forward response as simple as I can possibly make it.

Scientists reveal knowledge about existence, let's just say everything, but only through testing. If it is not testable it is of no concern to the scientist.

Philosophers reveal knowledge about existence but they do not test anything. It is bases completely on logic.

Do scientists use logic? Of course, I suspect even you use logic at some points, but what makes a scientist a scientist is following the scientific method.

you see, the method is important. A gun and a bow and arrow have the same purpose, to kill, just like a scientist and a philosopher might have the same purpose, but the way they go about that is what makes them fundamentally different.

Now if you want to be dense on purpose go ahead I won't stop you, but I also won't continue responding to your posts.

[Prosperity]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

yes Albert Einstein did believe in God, but I wonder why that is so important? He isn't all of Science, but if you do care about what scientists think about religion and God then I will point you to a Nature study done on scientists and their beliefs.

In 1998 only 7% of polled scientists believed in a personal God, 72.2% had out right disbelief while a little more than 20% were agnostic.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Is this at all relevant to this discussion? Not really, but if you cared to know its there.

[Prosperity]

:doh: Honestly Liberty...why?

Liberty question for ya.

Do you throw rocks at Hornet's nests?

Because you just did. Why are you starting a new thread about an old tired debate. You are never going to get the religious side to agree to the scientific theories.

Personally I don't know why people can't just agree that both sides have merit. Why couldn't life form in the "primordial soup", but the catalyst was created by some outside higher power?

:doh: why...why did I bother to post in here?

"Everytime I get out...they keep bringing me back in"

This is the tailgate, that's how we roll

btw, both sides don't have merit. ID has merit only when looked at from a philosophical point of view. It has absolutely no merit in the realm of science.

[hokie4redskins]

Another pointless, endless debate with Liberty who doesn't know squat? No thanks.

[Prosperity]

Not a proponent but I'll try:

1. God guided Evolution by his loving hand, therefore designing and creating all the wonderful creatures of the world.

2. He will continue to do so according to his will.

3. Cannot test (just like Evolution).

4. Cannot test (just like Evolution).

The best defense of ID is to accept Evolution and say God did it.

"just like evolution" Nope

How about we talk about the evolution of eukaryotic cells?

here is a sample hypothesis dealing with their evolution:

hypothesis: Mitochondria in cells were originally single celled prokaryotes which were absorbed by other cells.

predicion: If Mitochondria were originally single celled prokaryotes than they would have their own DNA, a double membrane, and they divide independantly.

test: YES mitochondria do have their own DNA, YES they have a double membrane, and YES they do divide on their own

here are some links that agree with atleast some part of this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria#Origin

http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa040600a.htm

[Zguy28]

"just like evolution" Nope

How about we talk about the evolution of eukaryotic cells?

here is a sample hypothesis dealing with their evolution:

hypothesis: Mitochondria in cells were originally single celled prokaryotes which were absorbed by other cells.

predicion: If Mitochondria were originally single celled prokaryotes than they would have their own DNA, a double membrane, and they divide independantly.

test: YES mitochondria do have their own DNA, YES they have a double membrane, and YES they do divide on their own

here are some links that agree with atleast some part of this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria#Origin

http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa040600a.htm

My question is: Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this with Darwinian/evolutionary theory?

[Prosperity]

My question is: Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this with Darwinian/evolutionary theory?

"want" is irrelevant, but to adress that point (which is completely irrelevant to this topic) organisms usually have a drive to BOTH survive individually and to reproduce, if they don't then they will have to be supremely adapted to the environment to survive very long (as a species).

For example you have a drive to live (your fear of death) and a drive to reproduce (your sexual drive).

An organism that had zero drive to reproduce would survive longer as an individual as you implied, but since it would have no offspring it would no longer be represented after it died. A species with no drive to reproduce will not survive very long.

[AlexRS]

"just like evolution" Nope

How about we talk about the evolution of eukaryotic cells?

here is a sample hypothesis dealing with their evolution:

hypothesis: Mitochondria in cells were originally single celled prokaryotes which were absorbed by other cells.

predicion: If Mitochondria were originally single celled prokaryotes than they would have their own DNA, a double membrane, and they divide independantly.

test: YES mitochondria do have their own DNA, YES they have a double membrane, and YES they do divide on their own

here are some links that agree with atleast some part of this post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria#Origin

http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa040600a.htm

I thought by "test" you meant rejecting the null hypothesis and all that. Changing variables, etc. What you are presenting here is an argument, not a test.... no?

[Prosperity]

I thought by "test" you meant rejecting the null hypothesis and all that. Changing variables, etc. What you are presenting here is an argument, not a test.... no?

yes all that stuff but this was a lot more simple and presentable.

Why do you think it is an argument? The fact that mitochondrion have their own DNA is found through experiment not logical arguments. It is not intuitive knowledge is it?

[AlexRS]

yes all that stuff but this was a lot more simple and presentable.

Why do you think it is an argument? The fact that mitochondrion have their own DNA is found through experiment not logical arguments. It is not intuitive knowledge is it?

My understanding is that Evolution is an argument/theory because it puts together a large number of testable theories (along with a wealth of evidence). Yet in itself Evolution cannot be tested.

Only parts of evolution can be tested... such as mixing a bunch of chemicals, heating them up and getting organic molecules, membranes, things like that.

It all adds up, but cannot be tested as a whole.

[Prosperity]

My understanding is that Evolution is an argument/theory because it puts together a large number of testable theories (along with a wealth of evidence). Yet in itself Evolution cannot be tested.

Only parts of evolution can be tested... such as mixing a bunch of chemicals, heating them up and getting organic molecules, membranes, things like that.

It all adds up, but cannot be tested as a whole.

That is because evolution is such a broad theory that it ecompasses a lot and all of those things can be individually tested and are supported as far as we know today. Now is the whole different than the sum of its parts? I would say they are equal. If all of the testable theories check out then indeed evolution itself checks out. Why do you think evolution is something other than all those things brought together.

The evolutionary hypothesis including the genesis of life would go something like this (I assume)

Chemical evolution led to self replicating DNA, membranes etc..

If Chemical evolution led to self replicating DNA, membranes etc.. then (insert Miller Ulrey experiment) etc....

now... could you say the same thing with ID? Of course not. ID is in no way testable.

[portisizzle]

For the proponents of intelligent design (Creationism) I would like you to:

1. State you hypothesis

2. Make predictions

3. Name some methods of testing the predictions

4. Show some studies/experiments done that support the hypothesis through empirical testing

simple enough right?

Do not mention evolution, just state your scientific theory

Just for fun since you do not seem interested in reading past threads ONTHE SAME SUBJECT!!!

1)Something can not come from nothing. (HOF44 work with me )

2)I predict that the universe as we know it was created.

3)Simple math

4)1x0 = 0

...............

[AlexRS]

That is because evolution is such a broad theory that it ecompasses a lot and all of those things can be individually tested and are supported as far as we know today. Now is the whole different than the sum of its parts? I would say they are equal. If all of the testable theories check out then indeed evolution itself checks out. Why do you think evolution is something other than all those things brought together.

The evolutionary hypothesis including the genesis of life would go something like this (I assume)

Chemical evolution led to self replicating DNA, membranes etc..

If Chemical evolution led to self replicating DNA, membranes etc.. then (insert Miller Ulrey experiment) etc....

now... could you say the same thing with ID? Of course not. ID is in no way testable.

Even if we prove that everything around us CAN be created by Evolution...

That says nothing about how the world around us was actually created

[HOF44]

Just for fun since you do not seem interested in reading past threads ONTHE SAME SUBJECT!!!

1)Something can not come from nothing. (HOF44 work with me )

2)I predict that the universe as we know it was created.

3)Simple math

4)1x0 = 0

...............

If you don't quit arguing that god can't exist some of the religious folks in here are gonna get mad at you.

[Prosperity]

Just for fun since you do not seem interested in reading past threads ONTHE SAME SUBJECT!!!

1)Something can not come from nothing. (HOF44 work with me )

2)I predict that the universe as we know it was created.

3)Simple math

4)1x0 = 0

...............

This is irrelevant, secondly if something can't come from nothing then something has always existed

[Prosperity]

Even if we prove that everything around us CAN be created by Evolution...

That says nothing about how the world around us was actually created

Science produces no certain truths only hypotheses. Some hypotheses are very strong, like evolution, others not so. My entire point in this thread is that ID is not science, it doesn't have a testable hypothesis. Can we agree on that?

Seriously who in this thread still thinks ID can be tested empirically?

Science can't disprove God, why feel threatened?

[portisizzle]

This is irrelevant, secondly if something can't come from nothing then something has always existed

So I take a crack at your initial post with as serious a response as I can make and you dismiss it as "irrelevant".

Sorry I played.

[portisizzle]

If you don't quit arguing that god can't exist some of the religious folks in here are gonna get mad at you.

shhhh!!!!! You might let on that I agree with Liberty or something.

[AlexRS]

Science produces no certain truths only hypotheses. Some hypotheses are very strong, like evolution, others not so. My entire point in this thread is that ID is not science, it doesn't have a testable hypothesis. Can we agree on that?

Seriously who in this thread still thinks ID can be tested empirically?

Science can't disprove God, why feel threatened?

People may feel threatened for a number of reasons - i doubt there is one single reason for that.

Without arguing philosophy of science... there are testable hypothesis and there are untestable ones. Evolution is not a testable hypothesis in itself - it is a theory put together using testable pieces.

ID cannot be tested empirically... That is why teaching it in classrooms is wrong. We should be teaching:

1) what can be tested empirically

2) conclusions we may make based on a)

3) fact that our conclusions may be incorrect

edit: 3) has NOTHING to do with whatever disclaimers ID proposers are proposing. It may sound like it, but those are merely another way of forcefully pushing "2 without 1"

[PokerPacker]

Just for fun since you do not seem interested in reading past threads ONTHE SAME SUBJECT!!!

1)Something can not come from nothing. (HOF44 work with me )

2)I predict that the universe as we know it was created.

3)Simple math

4)1x0 = 0

...............

4) 1xGODx0=0

[skinfan133]

if anyone REALLY wants my take;) , then here goes.

there was a big bang, God said let there be light and BANG it happened in a giant explosion of matter that became the universe.

here is my take on the creationist/evolutionist debate over the age of the earth and evolution and the origin of life in one paragraph:

"so scientists say that the earth is billions of years old right? some christians say the earth is only 12,000 years old right? ok heres my take. God created adam with the age of 30 even though at the moment he was created he was only a few seconds old. this can be aplied to the creation of the universe. it could be literally 12,000 years old, but made purposely with age (dont ask me why, im not God;) ) also the notion that random atoms were struck by lighting and made the complex molucule of DNA that miraculously reproduced for some reason is the father of life? please, i hope scinece in the future gives us a feasable hypothesis for us to ponder.

also along theoligical lines, if life by the evolutionist theory along with the DNA from charged particles theory is the correct one, then what is the point if we ae just accidental reactions? why keep life going if it serves no purpose? why be kind to your neighbor when in the end none of it matters becuase we ar just a speck on the whim of the universe? i think the reason no one sucumbs to that proves what the bible says, roughly "deep down we all now God exsists, we just rationalize and deny it" in modern lingo (and cant pull up that verse becuase i cant remember where it is in the 1200 pages of my bible! )

but anyway if anyone wants to re-open arguments from the other "what do you think?" debate, go ahead and shoot....

[BlueTalon]

No it is testable, we can test whether organic compounds can spontaneosly form under the environment of the Earth at that time.

:doh: How are you going to test that? By carefully constructing a well planned, well though out, well designed experiment in which you carefully measure and mix chemicals in a controlled environment? Like that's going to prove it all happened randomly. :laugh: