|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another Test for Intelligent Design Proponents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Could you, Jaywill, being a creationist, please give your opinion on the topic as given in the opening post?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024