Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
Menachem
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 300 (281097)
01-23-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Iblis
01-23-2006 11:17 PM


Re: This is a science forum.
Actually, this topic was called "Proof against ID and Creationism."
This message has been edited by Menachem, 01-24-2006 12:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Iblis, posted 01-23-2006 11:17 PM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by AdminNWR, posted 01-23-2006 11:49 PM Menachem has replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 300 (281109)
01-23-2006 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Menachem
01-23-2006 11:32 PM


A technical point
Actually, this forum was called "Proof against ID and Creationism."
Actually, the forum is called "Intelligent Design" and "Proof against ID and Creationism" is the title of the current thread in that forum.
The "Intelligent Design" forum is listed as one of the scientific forums. As a result, evidence used is expected to meet scientific requirements.
Some of our forums are grouped as "Social and Religious Issues" and for those other kinds of evidence such as scriptural quotes are allowed.
On another point, quoting text. The preferred way is to use:
[qs]text to be quoted[/qs]
That shows up as
text to be quoted


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Menachem, posted 01-23-2006 11:32 PM Menachem has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Menachem, posted 01-24-2006 12:01 AM AdminNWR has not replied

Menachem
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 300 (281119)
01-24-2006 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by AdminNWR
01-23-2006 11:49 PM


Re: A technical point
I was just about to fix that.
So Science is about recreating the created without recognising the Creator's Design and then claiming it ALL to be chance - this is in my opinion NOT "sound logic."
This message has been edited by Menachem, 01-24-2006 01:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by AdminNWR, posted 01-23-2006 11:49 PM AdminNWR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by AdminNosy, posted 01-24-2006 12:04 AM Menachem has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 154 of 300 (281121)
01-24-2006 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Menachem
01-24-2006 12:01 AM


Try harder
You will have to try harder to use sound logic and facts in some of the threads. If you continue to be unable to you will have to be restricted to the faith and belief forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Menachem, posted 01-24-2006 12:01 AM Menachem has not replied

Menachem
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 300 (281136)
01-24-2006 3:15 AM


Sound Logic

stay on topic, as defined in Message 1

Why do we need males and females to reproduce? Why the separation between the masculine and the feminine in the most intelligent creatures on the planet?
Asexual: Reproduction which doesn't involve gamete exchange with others.
Also, according to gays and lesbians - the opposite sex is obsolete.
What would happen if suddenly (ie. some virus) only males were born from females? Is it scientifically possible that this could occur? Is there any way that human males can reproduce without human females or vice-versa?
What is the probability of a planet that contains all of the building blocks for human life and enjoyment (from food and medicine to "state of the art" equipment like computers allowing us to communicate on separate sides of the world) just appearing by chance - for no higher reason?
A monkey will never become a human even with an eternity of evolution - it will always be a monkey, doing only the things that a monkey can do - whether they be similar to humans or not - they will never be human.
To disagree with this is in my opinion - NOT "sound logic."
This message has been edited by Menachem, 01-24-2006 03:46 AM
This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 01-24-2006 07:01 AM

pianoprincess*
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 300 (281591)
01-25-2006 9:19 PM


As I understand the concepts of IDs and Creationist, they say that life (to include all of the universe, atoms, quarks, etc) is too WONDERFUL and complex to have evolved by itself. Just to provide an easy reference, call this the wonderful theory.
One method of testing a theory it to see how it holds up when applied to others subjects. Let’s apply this wonderful theory to god with the assumption that the theory is valid. God is indeed too wonderful and complex to have evolved by itself or his-self if you prefer.
Lets make the obvious explicit. According to the wonderful theory, god had to have been helped along by his own god. Well where did that god come from? The answer is that when the wonderful theory is applied to god, it shows that god cannot exist. So something is wrong here?
I see two possibilities:
1. The wonderful theory is right. This means that god cannot exist because it is not possible for there to be creator of god. That creator would have the same restriction, as would his creator, ad nauseum.
2. The wonderful theory is wrong. The basic premise of ID and creationism is wrong. To say that our wonderfulness and complexity imply a god is patently false.
So which is it? Are there more possibilities that I have omitted?
When testing a scientific theory, your right, you see how it does else where. But science is a physical field...God is not physical, He created the physical, he created science. You can't test God with wiht the physical. He's God.

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Jon, posted 01-25-2006 11:53 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 300 (281619)
01-25-2006 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by pianoprincess*
01-25-2006 9:19 PM


I have not yet gotten a chance to welcome you, so please, I hope you enjoy it here . But to the topic now.
Creationism/ID is not specifically related to God. In Creationism, it's the "Creator"; and in ID, it's the "Designer."
Both of these theories claim to be science (unlike religion), so they must follow the rules of science, i.e., they must be able to support their claims with empirical (physical) evidence (actually, they shouldn't start out making claims in the first place, but that's a whole other plate of cookies). If the claim is made for a Creator/Designer, then there must be supporting empirical evidence. Creationists/ID Theorists have yet to provide satisfactory evidence proving the existence of their Creator/Designer. Without such evidence, we are left to do nothing but conclude that there is no Creator/Designer.
But, if the evidence were found, then we would accept it as fact. Science doesn't care if the new view conflicts with the old. If the new stuff is right, then that's what it goes with.
Trék

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-25-2006 9:19 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 300 (281639)
01-26-2006 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
09-19-2005 7:56 PM


As I understand the concepts of IDs and Creationist, they say that life (to include all of the universe, atoms, quarks, etc) is too WONDERFUL and complex to have evolved by itself. Just to provide an easy reference, call this the wonderful theory.
One method of testing a theory it to see how it holds up when applied to others subjects. Let’s apply this wonderful theory to god with the assumption that the theory is valid. God is indeed too wonderful and complex to have evolved by itself or his-self if you prefer.
Lets make the obvious explicit. According to the wonderful theory, god had to have been helped along by his own god. Well where did that god come from? The answer is that when the wonderful theory is applied to god, it shows that god cannot exist. So something is wrong here?
I see two possibilities:
1. The wonderful theory is right. This means that god cannot exist because it is not possible for there to be creator of god. That creator would have the same restriction, as would his creator, ad nauseum.
2. The wonderful theory is wrong. The basic premise of ID and creationism is wrong. To say that our wonderfulness and complexity imply a god is patently false.
So which is it? Are there more possibilities that I have omitted?
So, are you saying that ID and Creationism disprove themselves? I would have to agree here, though I've never thought of it this way.
Great Topic,
Trék

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 09-19-2005 7:56 PM bkelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by NosyNed, posted 01-26-2006 1:28 AM Jon has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 159 of 300 (281641)
01-26-2006 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jon
01-26-2006 1:18 AM


A way out.
So, are you saying that ID and Creationism disprove themselves?
Ah, but they have a way out of this. They say that the reasoning they apply to less wonderful things doesn't apply to the special case of God.
This is, of course, a very clear example of "special pleading". An enormous weakness in any argument of this kind but strength of logical argument is not something that they worry much about as long as they can bailing wire together something to sell to the already sold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jon, posted 01-26-2006 1:18 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Jon, posted 01-26-2006 1:42 AM NosyNed has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 300 (281645)
01-26-2006 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by NosyNed
01-26-2006 1:28 AM


Re: A way out.
They say that the reasoning they apply to less wonderful things doesn't apply to the special case of God.
Well, I'd say that their reasoning doesn't apply to anything. I mean, if their reasoning doesn't hold true for all things, then what is their proof for applying their reasoning to the Universe?
Do Creationists/ID Theorists know they have shotty science, or do they really think it's valid?
Trék

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by NosyNed, posted 01-26-2006 1:28 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-26-2006 9:37 PM Jon has not replied

pianoprincess*
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 300 (281848)
01-26-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Jon
01-26-2006 1:42 AM


Re: A way out.
I honestly onhundred percent believ what I say. I'm trying to weasle my way out. I'm saying what I believe is true. =)
and thx for the welcome Invicts!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Jon, posted 01-26-2006 1:42 AM Jon has not replied

pianoprincess*
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 300 (281851)
01-26-2006 9:50 PM


Invictus said:
Creationism/ID is not specifically related to God. In Creationism, it's the "Creator"; and in ID, it's the "Designer.
I see the term designer and creator as the same. unless the IDer is saying that the designer is not the God of the Bible. (which is prb. the case most of the time.
Both of these theories claim to be science (unlike religion), so they must follow the rules of science, i.e., they must be able to support their claims with empirical (physical) evidence (actually, they shouldn't start out making claims in the first place, but that's a whole other plate of cookies).
Why is it not scienc? because it is not observeable? Neither is evolution. I have yet to see a 'missing link' for starters.
2ndly, we do have physical evidence. We have the same evidence that you do, we just interpret it differently because we have different presuppositions.
Creationists/ID Theorists have yet to provide satisfactory evidence proving the existence of their Creator/Designer
science is incapable of proving anything 100%.
Without such evidence, we are left to do nothing but conclude that there is no Creator/Designer.
But evolutionsis have not provied satifactory evidence proving thier ideas either. Thus, I am left to do nothing but conclude that evolutionis not true. =)

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by NosyNed, posted 01-26-2006 10:28 PM pianoprincess* has not replied
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 01-26-2006 10:33 PM pianoprincess* has replied
 Message 166 by Jon, posted 01-26-2006 11:51 PM pianoprincess* has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 163 of 300 (281860)
01-26-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by pianoprincess*
01-26-2006 9:50 PM


other interpretations
2ndly, we do have physical evidence. We have the same evidence that you do, we just interpret it differently because we have different presuppositions.
Oo oo, someone brings up the other interpretations again. Are you the one who is going to take the physical evidence and offer an logical, consistent (for all the data) alternative interpretation?
I've lost count of how many times I've asked for one or a reference to a web site (that hasn't already been torn to pieces here and other places) that offers such a thing.
An alterntive interpretation has to have the same detail, same rigour and same overall consistency as the mainstream one. It can't be: "I don't like the conclusion so I'll conclude something else while ignoring 90% of the evidence"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-26-2006 9:50 PM pianoprincess* has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 164 of 300 (281861)
01-26-2006 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by pianoprincess*
01-26-2006 9:50 PM


Missing links
I have yet to see a 'missing link' for starters.
This would be a good one to take to one of the threads on missing links. You could start by supplying your definition of what one is and why that definition should be used in light of evolutionary explanations.
(I'll add a link to one later when I find it).
science is incapable of proving anything 100%.
Right on! What it does do is reduce the chance of an explanation being wrong. It keeps pushing it down by trying to prove it, not right, but WRONG. It also has at least some objective evidence for starting down some particular explanatory path.
But evolutionsis have not provied satifactory evidence proving thier ideas either.
This statement isn't one you can make. That is because you have no real idea of what evidence there is. If you know about .01 % of it I'd be surprised.
What you can say is: "I know so little about this that I can allow myself to conclude what I want as long as I don't learn about it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-26-2006 9:50 PM pianoprincess* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by pianoprincess*, posted 01-27-2006 11:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

eevans
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 300 (281875)
01-26-2006 11:48 PM


Intelligent Design Video
Greetings all,
I would like to compliment the posts offered up thus far regarding origins. Far too many forums concerned with similar topics are much less civil and fair minded. As a lay enthusiaste of the origins debate, I submit the following video created by Illustra Media. It contains some high level (relatively general, yet interesting) material on the Intelligent Design movement. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.
part1
http://www.kaneva.com/checkout/stream.aspx?assetId=2536&f...
part2
http://www.kaneva.com/checkout/stream.aspx?assetId=2538&f...

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Percy, posted 01-27-2006 8:14 AM eevans 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