Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another Test for Intelligent Design Proponents
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 106 of 151 (277474)
01-09-2006 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by joshua221
01-09-2006 12:29 AM


Re: b=b==b=bb=b
So, Prophex, since you see so much truth, and have clearly had to work very hard for everything you have, can you tell us what it's like to be so deep?
I mean, how many hours did you work digging ditches or mining coal to pay for your computer, or for your musical instruments?
What great sacrifices have you had to make, what poverty have you endured, that allows you the privilage to sit in your ivory tower and judge everyone else?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-09-2006 08:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by joshua221, posted 01-09-2006 12:29 AM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Nuggin, posted 01-09-2006 11:56 AM nator has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 107 of 151 (277495)
01-09-2006 9:32 AM


Topic Drift Alert
Unless those who have posted the recent messages can tie their discussion into the thread's topic, it is probably best taken elsewhere.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 108 of 151 (277539)
01-09-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by nator
01-09-2006 8:02 AM


High School
Keep in mind, Prophex is a high school student.
Speaking of High School - Let's talk about graphs.
Seems we've gone over a hundred messages and not a single IDer has risen to the challenge, with the exception of stuff like "both are graphs on a computer obviously the work of design".
It seems like they either know they are beat at the outset, or they don't have a good way of differentiating between the two.
So, I'll raise a challenge. Can any of the IDers come up with a test for evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by nator, posted 01-09-2006 8:02 AM nator has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 151 (277951)
01-11-2006 12:12 AM


I'm sorry, but the point wasn't about me at all, or my high school, it was about rich people pretending to have struggle and strife in a world of plenty. Rich can be subjective but in this case, your entire argument lacks a basis because there ARE those who work harder and recieve less. Although I am in the same boat as those of you who have said such things, I know that pretending to have a hard life in a real world of exploitation, and have - nots, is ludacris.
So to crash and schraf, remember the rest of the world, and be grateful, you seem to be annoyed about me and my lifestyle, but I am the one who acknowledges these things, and does not pretend to have what is called a hard life, one with great "sacrifice". Give me a break.
...
...
...
of that kit kat bar

"The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity." Van Gogh

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 01-11-2006 7:56 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 151 (278019)
01-11-2006 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by joshua221
01-11-2006 12:12 AM


I am going to start a new coffee houses thread.
I have a question to ask you but I can't do it here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by joshua221, posted 01-11-2006 12:12 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 111 of 151 (284252)
02-05-2006 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Parasomnium
12-22-2005 7:36 AM


explanation
Figure 1 is not a design. Figure 2 is a design. Rationale: Dumping a bag of sand at random will produce figure 1. In order to create figure 2, certain analysis of the shape, structure, amount of material required, size and shape have to be predetermined. Then a plan has to be made and implemented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 12-22-2005 7:36 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Parasomnium, posted 02-06-2006 3:41 AM inkorrekt has replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 112 of 151 (284254)
02-05-2006 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by NosyNed
01-05-2006 9:42 PM


Re: If it doesn't matter .....
The ID movement has the same political goals as YEC creationists but what they accept as true is anathema to the YEC creationists and even to some OEC creationists".
No, this is not true. ID in the real sense does not have to do anything with God. The designer can be even an alien from Mars OR a computer programmer or whatever you name. There is neither a Religious nor a political agenda. How and why? Evolution has become a sacred holy cow which is being protected by all means. Any challenge to this holy cow is considered ONLY as religious bigotry irrespective of Science. End of discussion. No more dialogues. Therefore, ID has emerged to demonstrate the failure of evolution and offer an alternate explanation. I am willing to discuss ID and evolution outside the realm of God or Bible purely based on Science.
Ex-evolutionist, Ex-Darwinist, Ex-Democrat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by NosyNed, posted 01-05-2006 9:42 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Asgara, posted 02-05-2006 7:50 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 114 by nwr, posted 02-05-2006 7:57 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 116 by Parasomnium, posted 02-06-2006 3:42 AM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 02-06-2006 11:43 AM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 113 of 151 (284255)
02-05-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by inkorrekt
02-05-2006 7:46 PM


Re: If it doesn't matter .....
I'm seriously interested in your "alternative explanation." All I ever see is arguments against evolution, not arguments for ID.

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:46 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 114 of 151 (284259)
02-05-2006 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by inkorrekt
02-05-2006 7:46 PM


Re: If it doesn't matter .....
Any challenge to this holy cow is considered ONLY as religious bigotry irrespective of Science. End of discussion.
Unfair.
There are scientific criticisms of evolution, that appear in the literature. The theory is not static. It changes as evidence suggests it should.
What is seen as religious are the many criticisms without good scientific support, often exhibiting ignorance of the theory of evolution, and put forth by people with a religious agenda.
Therefore, ID has emerged to demonstrate the failure of evolution and offer an alternate explanation.
Demonstrate away. Offer whatever alternative explanation you have. But it must be a scientific explanation. Just saying "the unknown designer did it" does not explain anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:46 PM inkorrekt has not replied

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


Message 115 of 151 (284303)
02-06-2006 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by inkorrekt
02-05-2006 7:36 PM


Re: explanation
inkorrekt writes:
Figure 1 is not a design. Figure 2 is a design. Rationale: Dumping a bag of sand at random will produce figure 1. In order to create figure 2, certain analysis of the shape, structure, amount of material required, size and shape have to be predetermined. Then a plan has to be made and implemented.
How about an alternative explanation for the patterns? Figure 1 could indeed be a heap of sand, but it could just as well be a block of marble that's been meticulously sculpted into that precise form. The point is that you cannot tell from the observed pattern alone.
So if you form a theory about it, you must make sure that you can somehow test it. Introducing an inherently unknown designer into your theory amounts to something you cannot test, demands an explanation of its own, and does little to further our knowledge.
The theory that scientists have formed about the patterns we find in living nature can be - and has been - tested, in many different ways. Things that have been introduced to explain it all a bit better (random mutations and natural selection) have been observed to exist, have been explained themselves, and contribute to a great deal of knowledge.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
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 111 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:36 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by inkorrekt, posted 02-07-2006 9:44 PM Parasomnium has replied

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


Message 116 of 151 (284304)
02-06-2006 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by inkorrekt
02-05-2006 7:46 PM


Re: If it doesn't matter .....
inkorrekt writes:
ID in the real sense does not have to do anything with God. The designer can be even an alien from Mars OR a computer programmer or whatever you name. There is neither a Religious nor a political agenda.
Then please explain the existence of the Wedge Document.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 06-Feb-2006 08:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:46 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by inkorrekt, posted 02-06-2006 11:07 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 117 of 151 (284369)
02-06-2006 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Parasomnium
02-06-2006 3:42 AM


Re: If it doesn't matter .....
I have not read the wedge Document. Whatever I write is my personal opinion. However, I will read the Wedge Document. Thanks for your reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Parasomnium, posted 02-06-2006 3:42 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 118 of 151 (284378)
02-06-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by inkorrekt
02-05-2006 7:46 PM


Re: If it doesn't matter .....
But that's nonsense. As much as ID advocates try to duck the question, when they posit a designer, they're talking about a fairly narrow field of qualified applicants:
1) Must be an eternal being (or, as in the case of your alien from Mars, you're forced into the position of wondering who designed them, and then who designed that designer, ad infinitum - or else admit that designers aren't required, in which case, ID refutes itself)
2) Must have powers that surpass natural law (since the argument of ID is that natural laws cannot account for the formation of these complex living things)
If we're not talking about God, then the word "god" is meaningless. For some reason ID proponents think they can promulgate a story that would directly implicate a god in the creation of life, and then pretend like they weren't the ones that brought religion into it. It's ridiculous hair-splitting. The only designer consistent with ID is an eternal, omnipotent one, and if we're not talking about a god at that point, who are we talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:46 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 119 of 151 (284796)
02-07-2006 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Parasomnium
02-06-2006 3:41 AM


Re: explanation
Things that have been introduced to explain it all a bit better (random mutations and natural selection) have been observed to exist, have been explained themselves, and contribute to a great deal of knowledge"
I have a very difficult time believing this. When I think about random chance, mutations and natuiral selections only 2 things come into my mind. 1) If random choice and natural selection is observable, why is it that I could never observe the pieces of a puzzle self assemble themselves? 2) My friends have performed controlled mutations on the fruit fly,Drosphila Melanogaster. Even after millions of mutations, they have not found one useful mutant.
3) Why is it that amino acids do not self assemble to make proteins? Chemical evolution cannot occur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Parasomnium, posted 02-06-2006 3:41 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 02-07-2006 9:55 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 121 by Chiroptera, posted 02-07-2006 10:10 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 126 by Parasomnium, posted 02-09-2006 5:14 AM inkorrekt has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 151 (284800)
02-07-2006 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by inkorrekt
02-07-2006 9:44 PM


Re: explanation
1) If random choice and natural selection is observable, why is it that I could never observe the pieces of a puzzle self assemble themselves?
Maybe because puzzle pieces don't ever mutate, and are never selected? What on earth would make you think that a jigsaw puzzle constitutes an appropriate analogy for reproducing organisms?
My friends have performed controlled mutations on the fruit fly,Drosphila Melanogaster. Even after millions of mutations, they have not found one useful mutant.
Useful for what? What were your friends expecting to do? Leash one and have it carry his books?
Why is it that amino acids do not self assemble to make proteins?
What makes you think they don't?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by inkorrekt, posted 02-07-2006 9:44 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by inkorrekt, posted 02-08-2006 2:48 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 141 by inkorrekt, posted 02-11-2006 6:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024