Intelligent Design questions

[Thiebear]

We came from a giant bang from nothing.

We were off by 5 billion or so years here or there but thats o.k.

Were still wrong on the color phases but we'll work them out eventually.

It's science therefore its better because we can prove it, till we prove something else thus crushing this proof. T-rex predator or scavenger?

bone in the wrong place...

Red shift pattern wrong...

Asteroids are solid so a Nuke will knock them off course.. Well except for the thousands that are like a sponge and will just explode into lots of earth killers. etc. etc. The rocket big enough to fix it was so large it was considered worse than the asteroid in threat...

Search for the Giant Squid is an hour of wasted time on the Science channel.. lots of dead ones.... but alas no live one..

Anything can be made to look foolish...

[Prosperity]

We came from a giant bang from nothing.

We were off by 5 billion or so years here or there but thats o.k.

Were still wrong on the color phases but we'll work them out eventually.

It's science therefore its better because we can prove it, till we prove something else thus crushing this proof. T-rex predator or scavenger?

bone in the wrong place...

Red shift pattern wrong...

Asteroids are solid so a Nuke will knock them off course.. Well except for the thousands that are like a sponge and will just explode into lots of earth killers. etc. etc. The rocket big enough to fix it was so large it was considered worse than the asteroid in threat...

Search for the Giant Squid is an hour of wasted time on the Science channel.. lots of dead ones.... but alas no live one..

Anything can be made to look foolish...

Ahh but Thiebear you are missing the point entirely. In fact, I am not even sure why you posted this.

I am sure we might be wrong about a whole series of things (though Science never EVER claims to be 100% correct), but the best path to correcting those mistakes is through science aka the scientific method. The scientific method requires testing, if something can't be tested then it isn't science. This entire thread is focused only on whether ID can be tested. Let me repeat that If it can't be tested then it is not science. If we start accepting ID as science then we will turn our backs on the scientific method due to ignorant political forces. We should always keep an open mind, except when it comes to the method, that is the golden standard that we can not abandon.

Equating ID, an untestable philosophical argument with the Theory of Evolution is a slap in the face of the scientific method. It is a slap in the face of the science and all the material comforts it has brought us. It is an attempt by religious fanatics to take away our knowledge and reason. You won't take that laying down will you? You won't abandon human progress for the sake of people like Blue Talon's feelings will you? If they want to give it up let them, if they want to brainwash their children let them. But, I will not let those people take everyone else down to their level.

(by you I don't mean just you, Thiebear, I mean everybody).

[rebornempowered]

If they want to give it up let them, if they want to brainwash their children let them. But, I will not let those people take everyone else down to their level.

Despite your "proofs" Goo to You via the Zoo evolution is the exact same thing. There is not way you can test it. How can you repeat or test a Big Bang over 15 billion years ago (I hate using any dates to argue this stuff when you know they'll just change them soon) led to our planet and eventually life as we know it today from chance random processes.

If you want to brainwash your children I'll let you. I will not let you take everyone else down to your level.

I will now take this time to ask how many books have you read that oppose your view of origins? Just curious. How intensively have you researched both sides? There are several good ones written by agnostics so you don't have to mess with that messy Jesus stuff if you don't like.

You treat people who oppose you as uneducated. I have read multiple books for and against evolution. I was brainwashed by the public school system. I came to my conclusions based upon my personal research and learning of BOTH sides. If you have thoroughly researched both sides I will shut up and not post in this thread any more.

[Prosperity]

Despite your "proofs" Goo to You via the Zoo evolution is the exact same thing. There is not way you can test it. How can you repeat or test a Big Bang over 15 billion years ago (I hate using any dates to argue this stuff when you know they'll just change them soon) led to our planet and eventually life as we know it today from chance random processes.

Woah, there dude do you want me to be an expert in every field from biology to astrophysics? I don't know why you brought up the big bang. You can't repeat the big bang but you can hypothesize that if there was a big bang then x y and z would happen. You can't test something for being irreducibly complex, or having an obvious purpose. You can use those in philosophical arguments however.

If you want to brainwash your children I'll let you. I will not let you take everyone else down to your level.

Then home school your kids or send them to a religious school.

I will now take this time to ask how many books have you read that oppose your view of origins? Just curious. How intensively have you researched both sides? There are several good ones written by agnostics so you don't have to mess with that messy Jesus stuff if you don't like.

I don't care if they are agnostic, I don't care if the guy was Pat Robertson, it isn't science. I don't check on the religious affiliation of authors before I read them. But I can tell you that back when there was this poster called Skins Fan 51 I had this same debate with him, heck through him I was even able to write to Dr. Gish himself. I was not impressed. I also did some research in my Philosophy class. Of course, it wasn't called intelligent design, it was called by its proper name: the teleological argument for God's existence. It is not a particulary good argument for God's existence. If you are as interested in opposing views as you claim then I recommend David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. He thoroughly eviscerates that particular "proof". In fact I had a thread on one of Hume's criticisms of the teleological argument. You can search it if you feel so inclined.

You treat people who oppose you as uneducated.

Only the uneducated ones. I was respectful with AlexRs for example.

I have read multiple books for and against evolution.

congratulations :thumbsup:

I was brainwashed by the public school system. I came to my conclusions based upon my personal research and learning of BOTH sides. If you have thoroughly researched both sides I will shut up and not post in this thread any more.

Thanks for "contributing," though I really wish you could have posted how ID was testable... :ciao:

[Winslowalrob]

Despite your "proofs" Goo to You via the Zoo evolution is the exact same thing. There is not way you can test it. How can you repeat or test a Big Bang over 15 billion years ago (I hate using any dates to argue this stuff when you know they'll just change them soon) led to our planet and eventually life as we know it today from chance random processes.

QUOTE]

We have tested evolution. We have tested chemoevolution. There are still too many questions about cellular evolution, but we have some quality theories and in time we will probably test it too. And the Big Bang we are looking for the residual effects, though I would not put it into the evolution argument. I have read both sides of the argument (In the same way I read the arguments that "there was no holocaust" or that "slavery was not that bad," because in essence that is what you are arguing for as well: giving every argument equal merit despite proof to the contrary). And we have a lot more proof than a lot of people like to admit. Now, here is the massive difference between our side and yours:

We will admit we are wrong if given the proof. We are fallible and we know it.

[smsmith40]

If you are as interested in opposing views as you claim then I recommend David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. He thoroughly eviscerates that particular "proof". In fact I had a thread on one of Hume's criticisms of the teleological argument. You can search it if you feel so inclined.

Well, I certainly agree that if you need a straight answer then its best to ask a Scotsman!

[Winslowalrob]

Well, I certainly agree that if you need a straight answer then its best to ask a Scotsman!

Ha, I'll tell Willy about this!

[Zguy28]

Let me repeat that If it can't be tested then it is not science. If we start accepting ID as science then we will turn our backs on the scientific method due to ignorant political forces. We should always keep an open mind, except when it comes to the method, that is the golden standard that we can not abandon.

Do you even know what science means? KNOWLEDGE. So let's see, when lowly ol' man (who we all know is omniscient), such as Charles Darwin for example, said that negroes and gorillas occupy a space on the evolutionary tree between baboons and white men, we should take that so-called science as gospel truth (no pun intended)? Darwin's Origen of Species is/was considered science was it not? Does that mean that some things can cease to be science or are not yet revealed to be science? Seems awful narrow-minded to dismiss something out of hand because it challenges the "accepted" theory.

What about the people who thought the earth was flat (it wasn't just church-goers!)? I took this from a website because I couldn't word it any better: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

1. Isaiah 40:22
   It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
   And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
   Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
   And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
   

The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.

This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, “theologians” of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)

We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties—an effect we still feel to this day.

[Winslowalrob]

Do you even know what science means? KNOWLEDGE. So let's see, when lowly ol' man (who we all know is omniscient), such as Charles Darwin for example, said that negroes and gorillas occupy a space on the evolutionary tree between baboons and white men, we should take that so-called science as gospel truth (no pun intended)? Darwin's Origen of Species is/was considered science was it not? Does that mean that some things can cease to be science or are not yet revealed to be science? Seems awful narrow-minded to dismiss something out of hand because it challenges the "accepted" theory.

What about the people who thought the earth was flat (it wasn't just church-goers!)? I took this from a website because I couldn't word it any better: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

1. Isaiah 40:22
   It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
   And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
   Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
   And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
   

The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.

This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, “theologians” of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)

We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties—an effect we still feel to this day.

Oh wait, because Darwin said it must be true? Dude, science is testable, there is no one manual that we have with all the answers, which cannot be questioned. Anyone that believes that every bit of knowledge is to be found in one source, one such manual... well, let us agree to disagree. Do any of us state that Darwin is perfect? Way to argue against nothing. I don't think Darwin is the supreme being, but I guess you thought so? Oh wait, I am making up arguments that have no bearing on the debate and arguing against them...

And not a lot of people thought the world was flat, though many christians did think so. See, not a lot of people could actually READ the bible when the flatness of the earth was an issue. Furthermore, not a lot of people could interpret the bible to the point that it gave the shape of the earth. AND there were MANY people that thought the world was round. If you honestly believe that Columbus sailed the ocean blue to test that theory, well you may want to read up a little more on history. Almost any group of people living on the coast, such as sailors or merchants, knew that we lived on a giant tit. You know how? Its pretty cool actually, when a ship sails off into the horizon and the mast dips below the surface, badda-bing everyone knew that the earth was curved, otherwise there would be no such dip. And did the bible also predict my birth and death? Is my name found in one of the later chapters? I don't want to offend you, nor belittle your book, but I hope you realize how zealous you sound in making your arguments.

[Prosperity]

Do you even know what science means? KNOWLEDGE. So let's see, when lowly ol' man (who we all know is omniscient), such as Charles Darwin for example, said that negroes and gorillas occupy a space on the evolutionary tree between baboons and white men, we should take that so-called science as gospel truth (no pun intended)? Darwin's Origen of Species is/was considered science was it not? Does that mean that some things can cease to be science or are not yet revealed to be science? Seems awful narrow-minded to dismiss something out of hand because it challenges the "accepted" theory.

What about the people who thought the earth was flat (it wasn't just church-goers!)? I took this from a website because I couldn't word it any better: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

1. Isaiah 40:22
   It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
   And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
   Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
   And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
   

The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens.

This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, “theologians” of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)

We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties—an effect we still feel to this day.

Yes science does translate into "knowledge" in latin but that isn't what science is. I am sorry, you need to look up science in a reputable encyclopedia, then you should post again.

here is wikipedia's definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciences

Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to a system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism – aimed at finding out the truth. The basic unit of knowledge is the theory, which is a hypothesis that is predictive. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

thanks for playing :ciao:

[smsmith40]

From BlueTalon's post

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to that. But you say that from the perspective of one who already believes in evolution, so it's a circular argument.

And you are a proponent of ID, so logically any argument you make is also circular, right?

So what you are saying is that you are only going to accept argument from somebody who ALREADY agrees with you. Is that really the point you are trying to make?

But it's a discussion that can never happen as long as pro-evolutionists have a stranglehold on the science orthodoxy

See this is why faith is such a powerfully negative force. The entire scientific world disagrees with you but your faith is SO powerful that , rather than doubt your faith, you are willing to believe that some big conspiracy is hiding the "truth" from the world. This is why faith has no place in Science, Science requires perpetual doubt.

You equate ID to flat earth or geocentric solar system. From a science perspective, they are worlds apart

They have one thing in common, they do not fit the established facts. If you want to get into this in detail I am more than willing to do so. BEfore we start though, we need to start from a common understanding.

I think the world is around 4-6 billion years old and was formed out of the debris form the Big Bang. I think life started at a cellular level through a process that we do not yet fully understand. Since that point life has evolved through process such as, but not exclusively, natural selection. This process was first postulated by Charles Darwin in Origin of the Species, his theories have since been modified and revised as observation has improved. Modern Evolutionary Theory is now the best explanation for how species have evolved, including human evolution from Apes.

If you could please state your essential beliefs on this subject regarding the origin of the universe, how life started, the age of our planet, 6 day creationism v ID, Micro and Macro evolution. At that point we can have a reasonable discussion on our relative positions

It's often about hatred of/bigotry against "organized religion", and it's about religious-style acceptance of unverifiable and unprovable ideas, many of which contradict scientific laws.

This is the point at which you are desperate to bring up Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can't wait

[Zguy28]

And did the bible also predict my birth and death? Is my name found in one of the later chapters?

No it's not, but that's not the book I would be worried about.

I don't want to offend you, nor belittle your book, but I hope you realize how zealous you sound in making your arguments.

Thanks!

[Zguy28]

Yes science does translate into "knowledge" in latin but that isn't what science is. I am sorry, you need to look up science in a reputable encyclopedia, then you should post again.

here is wikipedia's definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciences

thanks for playing :ciao:

Science isn't knowledge? Merriam-Websters isn't reputable? BLASPHEMY I SAY!

MERRIAM-WEBSTERS

Main Entry: sci·ence

Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>

I threw this in as well just because I felt like it.

Main Entry: creation science

Function: noun

: CREATIONISM; also : scientific evidence or arguments put forth in support of creationism

[Prosperity]

Science isn't knowledge? Merriam-Websters isn't reputable? BLASPHEMY I SAY!

MERRIAM-WEBSTERS

Main Entry: sci·ence

Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE

4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>

I threw this in as well just because I felt like it.

Main Entry: creation science

Function: noun

: CREATIONISM; also : scientific evidence or arguments put forth in support of creationism

Not when it comes to science no (plus its a dictionary, the definition doesn't go nearly in depth enough) though 3A is pretty close

[70th Week]

:yawnee: :snore: :shot: this thread sucks.

[Prosperity]

:yawnee: :snore: :shot: this thread sucks.

I know right, I can't get a straight answer from any of these creationists.

[70th Week]

I know right, I can't get a straight answer from any of these creationists.

:laugh:

[CaliforniaSkin]

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, in essence, one of Aquinas' arguments for the existance of God. It is generally refered to as the argument from first cause. (It is quite distinct from Aristotle's argument of the Prime Mover which was based upon Aristotelian physics and is thus fatally flawed.) To state this argument in a logical sense you have to define your assumptions.

1) The first assumption is that everything that exists must have a creator. (Something cannot come from nothing).

2) The universe exists.

3)Therefore the universe must have been created. God is the creator.

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that it leads to an infinite regress. If everything that exists must have a creator then God must have a creator (as stated in assumption 1). At some point something, either God or the Universe, must exist without a creator. There is no logical necessity for that to have been God. Faith may lead you to this conclusion, but logic does not.

[CaliforniaSkin]

"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).

Actually this isn't quite accurate (from the scientific viewpoint). What we are really talking about here is selection (one, but not the only factor, in evolution). Selection does not select for an organisms individual survival, only its reproductive fitness. Survival is only important as it relates to reproductive fitness. One of the things that studies on aging has found is that a number of the genes that contribute to aging are directly responsible for reproductive success.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Selection is not forward looking. Each generation is a product of selection by the environmental conditions that prevailed in the previous generation. One way to see this is to look at the evolution of HIV. In a particular patient HIV is usually susceptible to AZT. However HIV evolves _very_ rapidly (because it is a retrovirus). Many patients develop drug-resistant strains of the virus. One way doctors can deal with the drug-resistant strains of the virus is to stop treatment. In an environment without AZT the non-resistant strain is favored (occuring from either a back-mutation or from viral DNA which has been incorporated into the host DNA). After a few generations (of the virus) the AZT-resistant strain disapears and AZT is again effective.

[CaliforniaSkin]

Do you even know what science means? KNOWLEDGE.

Not quite. In any case, what is knowledge? The usual definition is 'justified true belief.' "Science" restricts what can be used as justification. It requires that the justification be empirical and rational. Science is a METHODOLOGY.

[smsmith40]

BlueTalon - Are you coming out to play?

Bedtime for me, I'll look forward to reading your reply tomorrow

[Prosperity]

Actually this isn't quite accurate (from the scientific viewpoint). What we are really talking about here is selection (one, but not the only factor, in evolution). Selection does not select for an organisms individual survival, only its reproductive fitness. Survival is only important as it relates to reproductive fitness. One of the things that studies on aging has found is that a number of the genes that contribute to aging are directly responsible for reproductive success.

I think when I posted that I meant that a drive to survive would allow them a greater oppurtunity to reproduce, but I guess I didn't actually write that down. Either way, you definitely explained it better than I could have.

[SnyderShrugged]

Niether the Theory of evolution nor the theory of ID can be valid hypotheses.

Fact: Any hypothesis test needs to have a consideration of statistical power and it's associated risk factors (alpha and beta risk). The variables (known and unknown) are too vast and unclear that the given power of any test is rendered moot.

Basically, a big waste of time.

Liberty, when you decide that you know at least half of the variables in your experiment, can control them as well as test the interactions of those variables, then you can move into legitimate testing. Until then it's simple guess work on both sides of the fence.

[MisterPinstripe]

Exactly skins-n-vages.

I love how people will ignore a post or part of a post that they can not refute. The basic fact is there is no proof for creationism, and there is also no proof for evolution. You have to believe in either one. All of the data can be interpretted by your bias to how you believe. To say that evolution has proof is wrong. They are theories, nothing more. What is also interesting is how do you know what happen, say, 2 billion years ago. You cant. You BELIEVE that you do, but you can not know for sure that you do. There is a fact that is a huge blow to evolution. There can be "explanations" for it but it can never be explained away. The basis of evolution is mutation, but mutation has never been shown to do ANYTHING but take AWAY from the genetic code, not add to it. I would like to know how you explain this since the highest evolution scientists cant explain it. I am also looking forward to see what parts of this post you ignore, or if it will be the entire post. Or if you will take to name calling. If you do none of the above: :applause:

[PokerPacker]

once again, while 1*0=0, 1*god*0=0

but 1*1=1