|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another Test for Intelligent Design Proponents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Unless those who have posted the recent messages can tie their discussion into the thread's topic, it is probably best taken elsewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I am going to start a new coffee houses thread.
I have a question to ask you but I can't do it here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6102 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6102 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
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.comhttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6102 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6102 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024