"Intelligent" Design

[PhDP]

Bursaw, how can you beat an evolutionist if;

 

- You cannot prove that your incredulity about evolution is true

- ID theory cannot predict anything, it just say "evolution isn't enough"

 

Why theists always reject complexity in favor of a simplified, personal incarnation of nature ?

[ydoaPs]

i still don't know why all these people think evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. they don't even deal with the same subject.

[buzsaw]

Bursaw' date=' how can you beat an evolutionist if;

 

- You cannot prove that your incredility about evolution is true

- ID theory cannot predict anything, it just say "evolution isn't enough"

 

Why theists always reject complexity in favor of a simplified, personal incarnation of nature ?[/quote']

 

The great debate was not about whether my hypothesis was falsifyable, but whether if it were scientifically falsifyable, would it satisfy the TD laws of science. It can be read in the archives of EvC for anyone to make their own assessment of it. I believe it was done last fall or winter, but don't remember for sure.

 

Edited to add that following that great debate a 300+ message thread about that debate ensued, open to all members of the board in which I responded to a host of secularists who pretty much advanced the debate extensively and quite intensely.

[ydoaPs]

laws of thermodynamics don't say matter and energy had to always exist. all the matter in the universe could have zero net energy. some types of antimatter decay into matter.

[JPQuiceno]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life or the universe. Evolution explains how life became more advanced, nothing more. It does not say that we came from a primordial soup. That is Abiogenesis.

 

Intelligent design is not science. It says that life is to complex to have formed. Well, evolution doesnt talk about the origin of life, so that point is invalid. Second, the Theory of evolution explains how life could become more advanced. Read the actual theory, its all there. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Keep this in mind.

 

ID is based on a fairy tale (pun intended). It says that, since life is supposedly "to complex", that some being must of created. Need not I remind you, the "Christian God" is an illogical idea. He for one, defies the laws of physics.

 

1. he is omnipresent.

2. he has existed forever, and nothing has created him.

3. he doesnt have to follow the laws of physics.

 

Now, I have heard the arguement 50000 times. "Well, he is god, he created the laws of physics, he doesnt have to follow them". Well, first of all, a bit of my opinion. Don't you think it would be sort of stupid to make laws that you, "the creator of the laws of physics" yourself defies? Seems so to me.

 

Remember, the bible gives no explanation for how "god" created the universe. It only says he made it, and it was so. So, what makes more sense? Something was created because some illogical, laws of physics defying creature said so, or some natural phenomenom was the acting force behind it? Obvious for a non-intellectually dishonest person.

 

Therefore, we conclude that ID is based on a book which gives no explanation on how the universe was created. It only sits there and says "well, you guys can explain how life advanced, BUT CANT EXPLAIN WERE IT CAME FROM. THEREFORE GOD MADE LIFE AND EVERYTHING. STFU YOU LOSE STUPID SCIENTIST".

 

Thats all there saying. They give no explanation for life or how god created it. All they do is say "science cant tell me where life came from, so some fairy tale creature made it. End of story. It should be taught to children."

 

WTF?

 

Cleary ID is UTTER BULLSHIT.

 

I stepped on toes in this post. I know. This is not a opinion though, it is the truth.

[LucidDreamer]

I did a great debate over at Percy's EvC (Evo vs Creo) board a year or so ago with one of the moderator evolutionists

Link it; I'm curious.

[beautyundone]

Now, I have heard the arguement 50000 times. "Well, he is god, he created the laws of physics, he doesnt have to follow them". Well, first of all, a bit of my opinion. Don't you think it would be sort of stupid to make laws that you, "the creator of the laws of physics" yourself defies? Seems so to me.

 

haha, but my mother always made rules in our house that she didn't follow. same thing, right? =P

[atinymonkey]

atinymonkey - what's with the atitude? By the way, it's spelled abiogenesis.

What, you don't like my sassy, inyourface, street attitude? I'm hurt.

 

FYI - if you want to pick apart spelling, at least attempt a spell check yourself. That way I'll not laugh at you for your smug 'atitude'

Actually, natural selection has been used as a model to describe the genesis of life from lifelessness, BY SOME SCIENTISTS.

Name one Biologist who has ever suggested that the process of Natural Selection, the variance in biological species over time either by ecological selection or sexual selection, can in any way account for the origin of life.

I have decided this best explains the problem.

How? How could you possibly think that natural selection is the answer to abiogenesis?

You may disagree with this approach, and that's fine. It does not mean it is wrong - it's an idea.

Actually, it is wrong. It's wrong by definition. Natural Selection is defined, we know what it is and we know what it is not. It doesn't matter what you happen to think about it.

I would recommend two books which describe this phenomenon in more detail' date=' but only in the context of a much larger thesis:

Maps of Time, from David Christian and The Machinery of Life by David Goodsell. [/quote']

Neither of those books reference natural selection. One is a biologists account of cellular activities and the other is a historians account of creation. I suggest you pick up a relevant book, such as 'Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges' by George C Williams, or even the ever popular 'Origin of the Species' by Charles Darwin. Go on, it'll be a laugh.

[Mokele]

The origin of life has, in fact, not been settled. I have my own theories on how life emerged, and it has nothing to do with a deity. But for many people, and for many scientists in particular, the issue is not settled at all.

 

There's abiogenesis, and there's evolution, and both are *totally* separate. I never meant that AB is settled, only that evolution is.

 

i find it amusing that when people DO find flaws in darwinism, all who believe in darwinism blatantly deny it as being a mistake or a lie. they never bother to actually look into it. because that would make them wrong, and they certainly cannot be wrong. they automatically assume that, because it is trying to disprove darwinism, it must be wrong.

 

Actually, that's not *quite* correct. You see, the creationists/IDers continually manufacture 'reasons' evolution is wrong, and they have lots of them. Now, this is the important part: *NONE* of those hold up under logical examination. Talk.Origins has a list of *every* creationist/ID claim known, and a detailed refutation of each. I myself can probably refute all or most of them.

 

But that takes time and effort, and I have other things to do (and, unlike creationists, one of those things is *real* science). On top of that, I've refuted "there are no transitional fossils" *very* well no less than 4 times on this forum alone, only to have a new creationist repeat the claim 4 months later. After a while, it just becomes tedious and aggravating, and we get snappy and mean.

 

There *are* gaps in our understanding of evolution, but a) these gaps are *very* minor, and b) they are questions of 'how does this particular event in evolution happen?' that are *not* the sort of thing that would overthrow evolutionary theory.

 

Darwinism *was* not fully correct. That's why we replaced it with a newer concept that incorporated all data. Then that was replaced with the New Synthesis, which in turn has been modified to incorporate punctuated equilibirum. Any flaw in evolutionary theory will *not* result in creedence for creationism, but rather in it being replaced with Evolutionary Theory version 4.8

 

anyways, i'm curious, what do you all find wrong with the theory of intelligent design? what kind of scientific facts disprove it? (specifically facts that just DISPROVE it. i don't want an essay on why evolution is true. what kind of evidence do you have that SPECIFICALLY disproves the idea of a creator?)

 

That depends on what you mean by ID. Some people just use ID to mean that God guided the mechanism of evolution, while others use the term to mean that God spontaneously created many species and *directly* intervened in natural processes, supplanting evolution at certain points.

 

The former is fine, there's no way to address whether there was or was not a guiding hand, nor does it really matter from the scientific perspective. The latter, however, is *not* fine, as it attempts to mix religion into science and pass it off as science (which the former does not do). There is absolutely no evidence for any 'divine intervention', and therefore the ID that is used by creationists as a 'stealth creationism' is not a valid or testable scientific theory.

 

1. So much of what we observe in life seems to require most of the functions of the complex organism to be in place and complete for the survival and propagation of the species........things like imune systems, sexual propagation, antioxidants........on and on we could go.

 

Arguement from incredulity. Just because we can't figure out how it could work more simply doesn't mean there's not a way. Behe's 'irreducible complexity' garbage has been utterly refuted, both in proper journals and here.

 

2. Add to the above, the positions and solar system distances, gravity, earth atmosphere and such must all be precisely in place for the above to even begin to happen.

 

This is, IIRC, the weak anthropic principle, and is logically flawed because, well, if those conditions *hadn't* been right, we wouldn't be here to notice that, now would we?

 

3. Add to the above, imo, even ID must meet the first law of thermodynamics, in that all energy existing must needs have had to have eternally existed. My buzsaw hypothesis calls for an eternal almighty designer having eternally existed and having been eternally creating, destroying, changing and managing things in a boundless spaced universe according to his will and desire. (PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT BUZSAW IS NOT A YEC!!) It also calls for a host of intelligence existing in the universe, beings which are not visible by the human eye just like other energy which has been discovered to have always existed, which mankind has been unaware of until the scientific capability has been achieved to detect this energy. We who are convinced that we have discovered the existence of this energy the spiritual realm if you will cannot prove to someone not connected and who has not experienced it personally. It being intelligent has the power to reveal it's existence to those who are willing to receive it. That's all I want to say about the higher ID dimension here. I've said it in as near of a scientific way that I know how.

 

Except, because it's untestable, it's not scientific in the least. "This exists, but it can hide, and can only be seen by those that believe already" is crap. You can use the same thing to claim the existence of fairys and invisible pink elephants.

 

But, most importantly, even if you are right, it doesn't matter, because it's not testable and therefore not science.

 

4. Most of what is observed, if created in tact by a designer would of necessity be created with the appearance of age as per the age which the big bangist and evolutionist would calculate. Take for example, the sun. If it was created on day four of creation, as the Genesis record states, it would have had to have been created fully developed, in tact to the degree that it will function for planet earth as it is since it was created intelligently in tact. I understand the protostar stage of the sun would have been around 30 million years. Then after that stage, I would assume it would need more time/age appearance, likely at least a couple of billions of years, to become sufficient to do what we oberve it to be doing for the solar system for the sustenance of life on earth. The bottom line is that it certainly would look far more aged than a few thousand years. Also, Adam and Eve and other complex life would have, imo needed to have been created with the appearance of age in order to survive and propagate, according to the Genesis record, from which I base my hypothesis.

 

How is this any different than saying the world was created, intact and with false evidence of a past, last thursday around tea-time? It's not, and neither position is interesting, relevant, or the least bit scientific.

 

Furthermore, if god created it so it would *look* old, doesn't that make god a liar?

 

If you're trying to show that ID works as a *belief*, then yes, fine, it does. But that's not what we're disputing. We're disputing it's scientific merit, of which it has none, because it fails to fulfill any of the criteria.

 

I did a great debate over at Percy's EvC (Evo vs Creo) board a year or so ago with one of the moderator evolutionists, in which I clearly won, showing that my buzsaw ID hypothesis not only satisfies the universe's scientific 1st ltd, but the 2nd and 3rd as well. The admins pshawed it as a nonevent and it wasn't long before I was suddenly permanently banned without warning after having never even having had a temporary suspension in my 2+ year sojourn there and around three thousand posts.

 

Considering your delusion that you 'won' the last creationism/evolution debate here, I'm inclined to take that with a heaping pile of salt. You were warned *repeatedly* for confusing abiogenesis with evolution, dodged questions you couldn't answer, refused to admit when you were caught with your pants down, and, to steal a phrase from a mod, 'threw out more red herrings than a russian trawler'.

 

That you *think* you won any such debate only shows the depths of your delusion. I bet you think you're winning this, too.

 

The great debate was not about whether my hypothesis was falsifyable, but whether if it were scientifically falsifyable, would it satisfy the TD laws of science.

 

Well, if you'd've come here, we could have saved you some time. It's not scientifically testable or falsifiable.

 

Mokele

[buzsaw]

Link it; I'm curious.

 

Buzsaw/Jar Great Debate at EvC: Go to Google and search "buzsaw jar great debate." When you access the first link, it brings you to the last page of the debate. Click page one to begin.

[buzsaw]

Imo, it would be more fair to the respondee and helpful for the reader if you'd use the quote button to designate who you're responding to if you combine your responses to more than one member in one post, Mokele. I don't appreciate having my stuff mixed in with that of others without reference to who's being quoted. It's especially difficult for readers who've not read the thread and who do not have time to do so. If not, at least please consider separate posts for separate folks. Fair enough?

 

Furthermore, if god created it so it would *look* old, doesn't that make god a liar?

 

Not at all. This is a poor argument I hear very often by secularists. There is no basis for your argument at all. The Genesis record specifies that work was done by the multipresent spirit of God, with no designated period of time involved, according to my hypothesis, which does not hold to a 24 hour day on the first four days of creation. It also states that work was done by God on every creation day, including day six when Adam was made from the dust. That he has the wisdom, ability and energy to make a man in a day and to introduce the breath of life into it by his life giving spirit does not make him a liar for not doing it as secularist finite earthlings conceive it to have had to have been done. Obviously, if a higher power/energy than ourselves observe on earth exists and who did it, no deceit would have been intended. I'm not saying you should believe it, just like you shouldn't expect us to believe the universe could emerge from a singularity point, generate life abiogenically and all come in place eventually by natural and random processes. This thread is about ID. Why should you not expect counterparts to post on the basis of ID ideology? Do you think secularists should just be able to debunk the minority viewpoint without the right for a minority thought response? Is that what you want........a lecture board here where majority viewpoints are lectured exclusively?

 

If you're trying to show that ID works as a *belief*, then yes, fine, it does. But that's not what we're disputing. We're disputing it's scientific merit, of which it has none, because it fails to fulfill any of the criteria.

 

Considering your delusion that you 'won' the last creationism/evolution debate here, I'm inclined to take that with a heaping pile of salt. You were warned *repeatedly* for confusing abiogenesis with evolution, dodged questions you couldn't answer, refused to admit when you were caught with your pants down, and, to steal a phrase from a mod, 'threw out more red herrings than a russian trawler'.

 

I did not claim to have won any creation/evolution debate here, now did I? Please document. I did post that I had refuted some false statements by some members here. Big difference! "Repeatedly?" Exactly how many times, Mokele, was I specifically warned about confusing abiogenesis with evolution here? How many bonafide "red herrings" by buzsaw in this forum can you cite, Mokele? Please, either document or withdraw these charges!!

 

That you *think* you won any such debate only shows the depths of your delusion. I bet you think you're winning this, too.

 

For sure, you're not winning. All you're managing to do is irritate, malign, smear and belittle a fellow member who has a minority viewpoint.

 

Well, if you'd've come here, we could have saved you some time. It's not scientifically testable or falsifiable.

 

As I stated it was not falsifiable, nor did I claim it to be, yet at EvC it was acceptable for debate as an hypothesis relative to scientific thermodynamic laws. Nothing more, nor did I claim it to be more.

[The Spith]

Man what BS that article is:

 

Physics. One of the most striking discoveries of modern science has been that the laws and constants of physics unexpectedly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life. For instance, physicist-philosopher Robert Collins said that gravity is fine-tuned to one part in a hundred million billion, billion, billion, billion, billion. There are dozens of such parameters that require precise calibration to produce a universe that can sustain life. This cannot be the product of mere chance—instead, it's persuasive evidence of God's existence.

 

I thought he said he understood evolution. Then why the hell does he think the universe was 'built' for life when evolution teaches that life adapts to the universe.

 

These microscopic, biological contraptions—such as cilia, the whip-like hairs on the surface of cells that move fluid across the cell's surface, and the motor-like flagella that propel bacteria—are extremely unlikely to have been built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes. To function, they had to be fully present. These amazing systems—which far exceed the capacity of human technology—point toward a transcendent Creator.

 

Not even an attempt at providing evidence here. 'Highly unlikely' - says who? Him?

 

 

Anyone who believes in religion, believes that there is something special about humans which puts them apart from the rest of the universe (other than high intelligence and the ability to use tools). And so in the end religion boils down to ego.

 

I can't wait til the day we find other intelligence in the universe. Let them try and look that up in their holy books.

[swansont]

Not at all. This is a poor argument I hear very often by secularists. There is no basis for your argument at all. The Genesis record specifies that work was done by the multipresent spirit of God, with no designated period of time involved, according to my hypothesis, which does not hold to a 24 hour day on the first four days of creation. It also states that work[/b'] was done by God on every creation day, including day six when Adam was made from the dust.

 

Is there any evidence in the Bible that would make you think that the periods of creation were not normal-length days? The whole "the earth tells us how to interpret the Bible" view is what makes it unscientific, because you've assumed that the Bible is correct.

[reverse]

Grief!

 

Define intelligent.

 

Are we talking manipulation with “end” goal in mind.?

 

How can we use the term “end” when "time" is one of the ingredients in the mix.

[Phi for All]

No evidence of a scientific nature for ID after two pages, moved to Pseudoscience.

[buzsaw]

Is there any evidence in the Bible[/i'] that would make you think that the periods of creation were not normal-length days? The whole "the earth tells us how to interpret the Bible" view is what makes it unscientific, because you've assumed that the Bible is correct.

 

As I've stated before, my understanding of the reading of the Genesis one record is that since the sun was not created until day four, the sun being what determines the days after day four, likely the first four days, including the day of the sun's creation were an undetermined length of time as the length of these days were not determined by the sun. God's spirit is the spirit of light, as well as the agent which God sends forth to do things in the universe, so my thinking is that the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit provided the light before day four. The record says he was there present and working to effect the creative processes however they were done and however long it took. Only God knows that. So far as the age of the earth, verse one simply states that whenever the earth was created, God did it.

 

Since the sun and moon were finished some time in day four, I believe days five and six were sun regulated days and that the birds, fish, animals and mankind were made in two literal days. I suppose the revolution (revolving) of the earth could have began slowly, or some other unknown during those creation days with special arrangements by God for that. Again, only God knows and we can speculate. Nothing set in stone, so far as I am concerned. I do not think evolution is the answer and nobody will ever convince me that they were given what we know so far. Imo, there should be all kinds of fossil evidence of such, if it were the case.

[buzsaw]

No evidence of a scientific nature for ID after two pages, moved to Pseudoscience.

 

Thanks Phi. I feel more comfortable posting, with it being moved out of science, since that seems to be how most perceive it here.

[swansont]

Again, only God knows and we can speculate.

 

Ah, weaseling to the the highest degree. The ultimate dodge.

 

Nothing set in stone, so far as I am concerned. I do not think evolution is the answer and nobody will ever convince me[/b'] that they were given what we know so far. Imo, there should be all kinds of fossil evidence of such, if it were the case.

 

(emphasis added) That firmly ensconces you in religion, if nothing will convince you. No pretense that any science is contained in your argument.

[atinymonkey]

The record says he was there present and working to effect the creative processes however they were done and however long it took. Only God knows that.

Presumably you think P knew. After all, Genesis is P's reinterpretation of the story of creation. It was not intended to be a 'record' of creation when it was penned, how can it be interpreted as such now?

[buzsaw]

Ah, weaseling to the the highest degree. The ultimate dodge.

 

No. Exercising some genuine Christian humility. I don't buligerently and dogmatically insist on my viewpoint as though I have eye witnesses and am willing to admit that I may be mistaken in some aspects of my ideology, unlike how big bangers and evolutionists often act.

 

(emphasis added) That firmly ensconces you in religion, if nothing will convince you. No pretense that any science is contained in your argument.

 

I guess that's what each reader must decide for themselves as we all post our stuff. Thanks for your viewpoint. At least someone's reading me and responding.

[Hellbender]

I don't buligerently and dogmatically insist on my viewpoint as though I have eye witnesses and am willing to admit that I may be mistaken in some aspects of my ideology, unlike how big bangers and evolutionists often act.

If you keep implying that big bang and evolution theory are "secularist ideologies", less and less people are going to take you seriously.

[Hellbender]

Thanks Phi. I feel more comfortable posting, with it being moved out of science, since that seems to be how most perceive it here[/b'].

So this whole time you weren't treating it as science, when you were posting about it in the evolution forums? How did you want us to percieve it?

[swansont]

No. Exercising some genuine Christian humility. I don't buligerently and dogmatically insist on my viewpoint as though I have eye witnesses and am willing to admit that I may be mistaken in some aspects of my ideology' date=' unlike how big bangers and evolutionists often act.

[/quote']

 

 

But it is dogma. "God did it" has no scientific merit whatsoever.

 

And "buligerent" is a pretty funny typo. Sounds like a contraction of "belligerent" and "bulimia" which is pretty descriptive - the intentional vomiting of the dogma without regard for any facts (e.g. the massive evidence that supports things like the big bang and evolution) by someone with a distorted image of the world that compels them try to interpret science through an ideological filter.

[buzsaw]

If you keep implying that big bang and evolution theory are "secularist ideologies", less and less people are going to take you seriously.

 

How many secularists believe in creationism? Though some creationists are evolutionists, my understanding is that evolution arose from secularist thought. 50 years ago few creationists were evolutionists, so far as I can remember.

[ydoaPs]

How many secularists believe in creationism?

a lot. one of the more comical ones is the Raelians. there are several other ones as well.