|
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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Nuggins wanted to know what supporters of ID believed.
The supporters have mostly been silent. Maybe you can answer the question.
Flew being a supporter of ID answered Nuggins question what is ID.
No, he didn't. Flew is a deist. Most ID proponents believe their is a problem with evolution, and want ID to fit their. But Flew has indicated that he has no problem with evolution. He does question natural abiogenesis, which is not itself part of evolution.
I thought this qualified it to be on topic.
You should just discuss ID, maybe answer Nuggins as to what an ID supporter such as yourself believes it to be. Bringing in Flew is a diversion.
ts not about the evidence of theology (religion) but the enormity of the scientific evidences supporting the mechanics of ID that should be taught in the public schools.
Thus far the amount of scientific evidence for ID is precisely zero. There has been a lot of philosophical argumentation, but no scientific evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I asked for you to support this assertion:
randman writes: The fossil record in toto fits ID, and does not fit ToE. Specifically, I asked you to...
pink sasquatch writes: ...explain how the fossil record data is predicted by ID theory, or how the data confirms ID theory. You give me:
randman writes: lack of transitionalssudden appearance stasis (opposite of evolution) etc, etc,... Randomly spouting attributes of the fossil record does not describe how it is predicted by ID theory or confirms ID theory. Since you claim to have written "pages and pages" on this topic, I'm sure you can do better than the above. I'll ask you slightly more specific questions, since you seem incapable of simply supporting your assertion otherwise: 1. How does ID theory predict that there will be gaps in the fossil record? 2. How do gaps in the fossil record confirm ID theory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
These things you devote your time to do not matter when you die. Yet you tell me I am wrong, and I know less. That's why I laughed at your post, and said you were lost, because you seem to have fallen victim to the illusion.
Good job oddjob.
quote: wowzers edit: cry myself to sleep lol This message has been edited by prophex, 12-07-2005 01:13 PM these walls are paper thin and everyone hears every little sound.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
lack of transitionals sudden appearance starlings in america rabbits in australia observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The evidence for ID is the same as for evolution. It's a matter of which fits the data better. The fossil record does not agree with evolution. It does agree with ID.
Nuff said!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
You have not made a case for that. You have made a faith statement.
But, you have not explained anything at all about many things. 1) HOw does Intelligent design explain the fossil record in a way that distinguishes itself from variation followed by natural selection. Because you are insisting there are not enough points on the graph?? 2) What predictive powers does I.D. have. In the I.D. claims, why are the predictions that are claimed are part of the I.D. mechanism. 3) What can I.D. be used for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
What up, P? Are you doin ok in school? What we do every day matters when we die...because all of us influence other people...their beliefs and their destinies.
Anyway...back on Topic! Nuggin started this thing out by asserting: Nuggin, in O.P. writes: Creationists have a very well developed theory - "God created mankind, all the animals, and all the plants in just the way it's described in the Bible." Evolutionists have a very well developed theory - "Mutations in the genetic code create new traits which can be passed from one generation to the next. Those traits which are benificial thrive. Over time, small changes add up to big changes." But Intelligent Design, not so much... Prophex, you are a bright lad! If you were asked to come and talk to a room full of fifth graders in their science class and you could explain to them your personal belief on Intelligent Design, what would you say to them? Remember....its a science class full of young and impressionable minds. If you get a sec, tell us what you would say to them kids!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Sup Phat, I'm liking the avatar. I'm getting a side projec going with this sick drummer, got a song going, gots to present it to the drummer though, he's serious about music, going to berklee maybe. Anyway, the way he approached the topic was with a question, he gave no intimation of his own beliefs, this has become routine, but whatever. I would of gone about it very differently, we aren't fifth graders. lol
I would tell those kids to think more about why they are here. these walls are paper thin and everyone hears every little sound.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
I think I might have made a breakthrough. To explain the vast number of extinct species that mainline ID-ers dodge,I propose a Host of Incompetent Designers and an Almost-Competent One. This will henceforth be known as the HID+ACO Theory. Film at 11.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Devin Inactive Member |
At best, intelligent design can be called "junk science". No evidence has ever been found to lend any credence to the theory. While I do support evolution whole-heartedly, even the creationists have at least the Bible to lend credence to their argument (if you choose to interpret it literally). Intelligent Design is just a feel-good theory invented by those who fear of the consequences of not believing in the Bible, yet still think evolution makes sense. I feel that ID is just an attempt to split the difference between a fully scientific and a fully religious view of the origin of man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray Devin.
The creationists also have the "all has been corrupted since creation" excuse for all the bad designs. ID has no excuse for bad designs, nor for failed (extinct) designs, and the tree of evolution should be inverted for ID (all coming together into better designs) Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
babelfish Inactive Member |
It seems to me, "intelligent design" has become more of a mortar for filling in the gaps of misunderstanding or personal ignorance, misrepresentations of evidence, or lack of defenitive scientific discovery to some questions a faith based believer may have... whatever those questions may be.
They seem to accept and even understand many scientific principals and will even go so far as to describe the keystone to their faith as "an allegory." However, they are not satisfied with some of the answers given and place their own beliefs in the holes. Perhaps the reason that there are no real mechanics to the theory of ID may lie in the very nature of the word "mechanics." For an ID believer, the Big Bang, the formation of our solar system and the Earth, and the Theory of Evolution by scientific explanation seems to be so "mechanical." There is no magic or, forgive me, poetry to the creation of all things. Not to a faith based person anyway. Therefore anything easily explained away by scientific discovery removes just a little more of the magic they so depserately cling to. This is why any scientific discovery that threatens their faith in anyway is scrutinized, criticized, and challenged to the point of absurdity. So long as things remain unexplained, they exist in the realms of God's devine plan, and ID folks are perfectly satisfied with that answer. There are those who want to finish a puzzle to the final piece and there are those who think they have figured out the puzzle half way through and chose not to finish it, satisfied with the notion that they have pretty much figured it out already. The latter folks would be your ID crowd. They want to truly believe that there are things we can't possibly understand in this Universe and insert "intelligent design" as their answer, which can in no way be proven or disproven. It just has to be accepted as a matter of faith. - Babelfish The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babelfish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Accepting it as faith is fine. However, that is NOT a scientific theory.
Scientific theories go by evidence, by testablity, by the ability to have somethign falsified. The last thing a believer wants is to have their idea of God having an active roll in the creation of life is it being falsified. That is why, IMO, the promoters of Intelligent Design have turned politics to get it taught in schools, rather than try to come up witha way to make it science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
ID movement is about a scientific loophole not a theological loophole. Perhaps the problem is scientists are not willfully ignorant of the sciences and the evolutionist is. This means the evolutionist too understand the sciences. Knowing this fear ID because its based on the scientific evidence and not theology.
This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-09-2005 12:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Could you remove some of the 's's from your post, it's really hard to read.
TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024