Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another Test for Intelligent Design Proponents
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 31 of 151 (273902)
12-29-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jaywill
12-29-2005 4:39 PM


Ahem...
Could you, Jaywill, being a creationist, please give your opinion on the topic as given in the opening post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2005 4:39 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 32 of 151 (273970)
12-29-2005 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jaywill
12-29-2005 4:31 PM


Re: Unevolved
Do Evolutionists have a clear model of what an (let's say) intelligently designed life form would look like with which they could falsify an evolved one?
I would suggest any life form on Earth which is silicon based instead of carbon based. Or a higher life form not using DNA/RNA in it's construction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2005 4:31 PM jaywill has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 151 (273971)
12-29-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by jaywill
12-29-2005 4:04 PM


I hear it said that ID is not scientific because the proponents do not have a clear model of what non-intelligently designed life would look like:
Strawman argument. ID is not scientific because it does not have a falsification test. That means it is just a hypothesis and nothing more.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2005 4:04 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 12-29-2005 9:27 PM RAZD has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 34 of 151 (273977)
12-29-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jaywill
12-29-2005 4:39 PM


Re: Unevolved
Then if Evolution has no model of non-evolved life, how comes its "true science" but ID is not because they have no non IDed model of life?
Well, you're misunderstanding evolution.
For a life form to be completely "free" from evolution it would have to appear on the planet and remain EXACTLY AS IS since it's creation.
Evolution is not about how the thing got here. It's about what happens to it once it gets there.
If a bacteria snuck aboard the Mars Rover and somehow survived on Mars it would be going through Evolution right now, even though it didn't "evolve" there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2005 4:39 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2005 9:32 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 151 (274002)
12-29-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
12-29-2005 7:37 PM


RAZD writes:
Strawman argument. ID is not scientific because it does not have a falsification test. That means it is just a hypothesis and nothing more.
Do the singularity of the BB and the alleged randomly mutated biogenetics of alleged evolution have a falsification test?

From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2005 7:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2005 9:44 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 39 by ramoss, posted 12-29-2005 10:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 36 of 151 (274006)
12-29-2005 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Nuggin
12-29-2005 7:56 PM


Re: Unevolved
Parasomnium,
I don't understand your little test. You put two patterns up there. That's all I see.
Previous poster:
Well, you're misunderstanding evolution.
Any fool knows that.
To doubt evolution is to misunderstand evolution.
For a life form to be completely "free" from evolution it would have to appear on the planet and remain EXACTLY AS IS since it's creation.
So growth is evolution? Anything that grows is evolving? Why would anyone question the existence of the process of evolution if that is the case?
Evolution is life changing? Who in their right mind would then dare to state that organisms don't change?
Then how terribly ignorant to question evolution (change).
Now I see why you guys are so annoyed about arguments questioning evolution.
There is a variation to the - primordial soup to human being - over billions of years idea that I do want to explore. It has been proposed that sudden earth catastraphies sometimes cause changes in gamuts (spelling?) caused new species.
I don't know enough about it. But I think it was a alternative to something I find literally impossible to imagine as billion years primordial soup to human being gradualism.
As for the poster who said that evolution is not about origins. I realize that that is what is most frequently said. But I think it use to be about origins at the time I was in junior high school. I think they decided to distance themselves from origin of life through evolutionary change at some point. Or they decided to return to that and not venture beyond, at some point.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 09:34 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 09:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Nuggin, posted 12-29-2005 7:56 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Parasomnium, posted 12-30-2005 9:05 AM jaywill has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 151 (274012)
12-29-2005 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
12-29-2005 9:27 PM


... singularity of the BB ...
You'll have to talk to the physics gurus about the BB, but I believe that one prediction that is made by BB but not by ekpyrosis (an alternate theory) is the existence of gravity waves. None have been detected ... yet.
... alleged randomly mutated biogenetics of alleged evolution ...
Actually genetics was the most recent validation test of evolution -- the actual molecular structure matching to tree of evolution (common descent) was predicted before genetics was even known. If evolution were not the answer then a total unrelated structure could easily have been the case, and if it had, would have invalidated the common descent theory\mechanism.
and there is nothing "alleged" about either when both mutation and evolution have been observed eh?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 12-29-2005 9:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 38 of 151 (274016)
12-29-2005 9:58 PM


Intelligent Design topic - Time for a replay of message 1
This topic seems to have strayed to who knows where.
Below is a copy of / repeat of the content of this topics message 1. - Adminnemooseus
-----
Proponents of Intelligent Design hold that the patterns of nature strongly suggest the hand of an artificer, someone who has planned it all and made it happen.
To put their ability - to discern intelligence behind a pattern - to the test, I would like to present two figures and ask ID-ers a very straightforward question, namely to tell us of each figure whether or not they think it shows the hallmarks of design, perhaps accompanied by an explanation of their reasoning. First I would like to collect some responses, and then we can discuss them.
Here are the figures:

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 39 of 151 (274022)
12-29-2005 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
12-29-2005 9:27 PM


Yes, they do.
Both evolution and the "big bang' theory made many predictions about what will be foudn out. When looked for, the data matched what woudl be predicted.
If the data did not match, the theory would have been falsified.
{Off-topic. Please see previous message. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-29-2005 10:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 12-29-2005 9:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 40 of 151 (274129)
12-30-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by jaywill
12-29-2005 9:32 PM


Back on topic
jaywill writes:
I don't understand your little test. You put two patterns up there. That's all I see.
It's very simple. The question is: does one of the patterns, or both, or neither, show some characteristics of intelligent design to you? If so, could you describe how?
{edited to change subtitle}
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 30-Dec-2005 02:06 PM

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2005 9:32 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jaywill, posted 12-30-2005 10:02 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 41 of 151 (274154)
12-30-2005 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Parasomnium
12-30-2005 9:05 AM


Re: Back on topic
It's very simple. The question is: does one of the patterns, or both, or neither, show some characteristics of intelligent design to you? If so, could you describe how?
I don't think I'll be of much use to your thread Parasomnium.
I'll refraim from posting to this one then.
I think the issue of the Intelligent Design as possible scientific theory is too serious to subject to this rather flippant little examination of yours.
Dealing with graphs is part of my profession though, and the first thing these patterns remind me of are graphic curves of statistical analyzed data.
The left looks like a normal bell curve distribution. The right looks more varied distribution. But I can't make any ID verses non ID assumptions about anything based on this.
Sorry. You might as well make your points with what you have.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-30-2005 10:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Parasomnium, posted 12-30-2005 9:05 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Parasomnium, posted 12-31-2005 5:26 AM jaywill has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 42 of 151 (274341)
12-31-2005 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by jaywill
12-30-2005 10:02 AM


Re: Back on topic
jaywill writes:
I don't think I'll be of much use to your thread Parasomnium.
I'll refraim from posting to this one then.
And yet you do. I wonder why.
I think the issue of the Intelligent Design as possible scientific theory is too serious to subject to this rather flippant little examination of yours.
If ID cannot even stand "flippant little examinations", then I think my point is already proven.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jaywill, posted 12-30-2005 10:02 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 12-31-2005 7:52 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 43 of 151 (274353)
12-31-2005 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Parasomnium
12-31-2005 5:26 AM


Re: Back on topic
Parasomnium,
I think that there is an intelligent mind responsible for life's existence. Perhaps you see a BIG TIME. I see a BIG MIND. I didn't say at this stage if that is Vishnu or Yahweh or Allah or the Great Invisible Pink Atheist Deity of Quantum Physics. But I see the results of a Big Mind in life on this earth and the fine tuning of the cosmos to support life.
Now you can pull me down to some low level and score all the debate points on some little amino acid's behavior all you can. But when I consider the big picture of life on this earth, I think Intelligent Design is a reasonable working theory.
I don't think enough time exists for a random process to go from a primordial soup to a human being. I know that you will probably respond that Evolution is not a random process. As far as I can see this just means that Evolution doesn't envolve a personality.
I think that some natural selection is an explanation. But the question is has natural selection done everything to take bacteria to spawn off human beings?
Who or what that is we may not know unless the party came forward and confessed. But I think that there is design in the way my brain, eye, intestines, sexual organs, heart, lungs, stomach, muscles, tongue, etc, etc. work.
The problem I have with folks like you is that you like score little points on some little amino acid or some protein. So I come away saying "Well, she certainly knows more about that little amino acid than I do." You come down to these little components and score lots of points.
But when I step back and consider the big picture it is insane to me to surpress the recognition of intelligent design in the mechanisms of nature. So when you finish your little test and most people step back and look at the big picture, they still are going to be compelled recognize that there is design in nature.
I'm a computer programmer analyst. Now I could write a program that if large sections of it were damaged or erased, could somehow repair itself. But it would take a lot of forethought, planning, and design.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-31-2005 07:53 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-31-2005 07:54 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-31-2005 07:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Parasomnium, posted 12-31-2005 5:26 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Funkaloyd, posted 12-31-2005 8:16 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2005 9:38 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 46 by Nuggin, posted 12-31-2005 11:31 AM jaywill has replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 151 (274358)
12-31-2005 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by jaywill
12-31-2005 7:52 AM


Re: Back on topic
How did we get to protein points?
If you can see intelligent design in the mechanisms of nature, life, or whatever, then I'm sure Parasomnium would greatly appreciate a straight answer from you as to whether figure 1, figure 2, both or neither appear to be intelligently designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 12-31-2005 7:52 AM jaywill has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 151 (274366)
12-31-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by jaywill
12-31-2005 7:52 AM


Re: Back on topic
I think Intelligent Design is a reasonable working theory.
Can you state what this "theory" is? And what the falsification test for it is? Just curious, as people seem to have a lot of different definitions.
But when I step back and consider the big picture it is insane to me to surpress the recognition of intelligent design in the mechanisms of nature.
Argument from incredulity.
But I think that there is design in the way my brain, eye, intestines, sexual organs, heart, lungs, stomach, muscles, tongue, etc, etc. work.
Argument from ignorance.
The problem I have with folks like you is that you like score little points on some little amino acid or some protein.
So if we just ignore all the little points scored on every issue that is investigated fully, then we are left with what, ignorance again?
ID either stands up to scrutiny or it is just a sham, a scam, and a flim-flam philosophy, but not a science.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 12-31-2005 7:52 AM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by joshua221, posted 01-01-2006 1:23 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024