|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6082 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design explains many follies | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
then one still has to stop at where the matter came from in the first place In fact one does NOT have to stop. There is considerable work going on to try to determine how things started. With ID (like all past religious explanations) we stop.
We stop at where the matter came from because the Intelligent Designer declares He has eternally existed. Excuse me? The designer is a capitalized "He"? This is exactly what the whole ID movement exists to avoid. If the designer is God then it is an utterly non-scientific approach and doesn't belong in a science class. The ONLY reason that the ID movement exists is to get into the science class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If one looks at why intracately complex matter exists from a non-ID viewpoint, then one still has to stop at where the matter came from in the first place that somehow deterministically changes/evolves over time into all manner of intracately complex structures. The matter came about from the energy of the Big Bang. Where did the energy come from, I sense you're about to ask? it may not have come from anywhere because the net energy of the universe may be zero. If I have ten thousand dollars, and I owe you ten thousand dollars, technically I don't have any money at all. I can still use that ten thousand dollars I don't technically have to impress people with a big fat billfold, though. The matter we observe in our portion of the universe may simply be balanced by an equal amount of antimatter somewhere else; if so the net matter/energy of the universe is zero, even though we look around and see a lot of matter.
How did all the smallest parts of organic and inorganic matter determine how they would be built into intracately complex atoms, compounds, and living structures? They did not determine that themselves; the laws of physics determine how matter interacts and is organized.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4111 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
On this point I disagree completely. Reality tells us that intracately complex matter exists, both organic and inorganic. If one looks at why intracately complex matter exists from a non-ID viewpoint, then one still has to stop at where the matter came from in the first place that somehow deterministically changes/evolves over time into all manner of intracately complex structures.
which following the evolutionary frame work would come from simple matter, which is really abiogenesis but since id covers that more than it does evolution.Some how you are thinking that there are only very complex systems when they came from simple systems - you still need to give your definition of complexity when you use it he same is true for those of us who believe ID is the most plausible explanation behind all that exists. We stop at where the matter came from because the Intelligent Designer declares He has eternally existed.
this is why ID is and never will be considered science, if the designer is a god we can not test how he did it. if ID coniders god did it then it is religion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Fred Hoyle was not a biologiest though.
Agreed. However, if the mathematical model were adequate, then you should not need to be a biologist to be able to use it. If you want to further discuss this subtopic, please take that to Criticizing neo-Darwinism. That way we can avoid going off-topic for an ID thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2996 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
(1) Ramoss wrote,
"Give me an experiment. Show me how ID will make a prediction about that experiment will fall out." Those of us who know the Intelligent Designer do this every day through the power of prayer. (2) NosyNed wrote, "There is considerable work going on to try to determine how things started." Let us all know when you/they have it all figured out and can prove it. Inquiring minds want to know. "If the designer is God then it is an utterly non-scientific approach and doesn't belong in a science classroom." Neither do the non-ID theories that cannot be completely proven. That's what ID is all about! The science classroom should be reserved only for those things that can be observed and completely proven. (3) Crashfrog wrote, "It (matter) may not have come from anywhere ........""The matter we observe in our portion of the universe may ........" Let us all know when the "mays" become "facts." "They did not determine that themselves; the laws of physics determine how matter interacts and is organized." Who then determined the laws of nuclear physics that placed protons, neutrons, electrons, ect. in their unique atomic order, combined them into compound elements, and finally made some of them into organic living matter? (4) ReverendDG wrote, "This is why ID is and never will be considered science, if the designer is a god we can not test how he did it." Same answer as (2). This message has been edited by John 10:10, 03-21-2006 04:50 PM The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Does DNA copy itself perfectly all the time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2996 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Maybe you missed my answer.
See post # 84. see Message 84 This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-21-2006 03:59 PM The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4111 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Those of us who know the Intelligent Designer do this every day through the power of prayer.
then it disqualifies itself just from that statement
Neither do the non-ID theories that cannot be completely proven. That's what ID is all about! The science classroom should be reserved only for those things that can be observed and completely proven. if this is your answer, then you need to read more about what science does and the theories scientists produce, and no ID is a wedge to get religion in schools, it predicts or explains nothing. No theory as been proven, but due to evidence can explain things better than another, so what does ID explain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Those of us who know the Intelligent Designer do this every day through the power of prayer.
That is not an experiment. That can not be reproduced and mesured by everyone. That could very well be the placebo effect. Sorry, but that is not a test or measurement or an experiemnt.
Neither do the non-ID theories that cannot be completely proven. That's what ID is all about! The science classroom should be reserved only for those things that can be observed and completely proven.
You mean, things like evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
One of the reasons I missed your answer was because you didn't reply to my post, but no matter. Thanks for pointing me to your response:
quote: Correction. One of the reasons organisms are different than their parents (not "imperfect") is due to imperfect replication of DNA during reproduction.
quote: I do not understand what you mean when you use the word "imperfection" in this context. It is not a scientific term, so could you please define it for me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Nobody has ever observed an electron. They have only been inferred from indirect evidence. Do you suggest that we should avoid taching children about electrons in science class?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2996 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
(1) ReverendDG wrote,
"So what does ID explain?" ID simply explains as a plausible reason why intracately complex design exists in mirco organic matter, micro inorganic matter, and in the macro universe at large. Those who believe in ID cannot prove this any more than those who do not believe in ID can completely prove something other than ID is the cause behind our existance. (2) Ramoss wrote, "You mean, things like evolution." Yes, evolution should not be taught in the science classroom because it can never be completely proven, as can other elements of scientific study such as nuclear physics, the laws of thermodynamics, electrical engineering, how creatures function and reproduce, how plants function and reproduce, etc. The science classroom should stick to the study of how things that exist function, not to "theories" of how things came to exist. (3) Schrafinator wrote, "Please define it (imperfections) for me?" Imperfections are simply mutations. Mutations rarely result in the betterment of the creature, let alone give a plausible explanation of how creatures can evolve from one creature to another to another to ......... "Do you suggest that we should avoid teaching children about electrons in science class?" No, I do not! Same answer as (2). The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Mutations rarely result in the betterment of the creature Rarely? Or never? That's two different things. If it's never, then you're right, mutation can't explain the development of one creature to another. But if it's rarely, then selection gives nature a means to hand-pick the rarelys, with the end result that creatures are bettered by mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
ID simply explains as a plausible reason why intracately complex design exists in mirco organic matter, micro inorganic matter, and in the macro universe at large.
Maybe it gives you a "feel good" reason. But it doesn't actually explain anything.
Yes, evolution should not be taught in the science classroom because it can never be completely proven, as can other elements of scientific study such as nuclear physics, the laws of thermodynamics, electrical engineering, how creatures function and reproduce, how plants function and reproduce, etc.
Sorry to bring you the bad news, but those "other elements of scientific study" cannot be completely proved either. Thats the nature of science.
The science classroom should stick to the study of how things that exist function, not to "theories" of how things came to exist.
The Theory of Evolution is, primarily, a theory of how species that exist continue to function and to deal with change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Oh, ok. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Using loaded terminology such as you were doing is not helpful, as the judgement of if something is "perfect" or not is entirely subjective, wouldn't you agree? For example, a mutation that confers a benefit to reproductive success could be said to be more "perfect" than a gene which is neutral with regards to reproductive success, wouldn't you say?
quote: But they sometimes do, right?
quote: More creatures are born than survive to reproduce. All creatures have mutations which make them slightly different from each other in various ways. All organisms live in a particular environment. The individuals in a population which, due to mutation among other factors, tend to reproduce more numerous offspring get to pass on those genes to future generations more than those individuals who are not as successful at reproducing.
"Do you suggest that we should avoid teaching children about electrons in science class?" quote: But didn't you say that we shouldn't teach things in science class that are not directly observed? Electrons have never been directly observed, so if we follow your advice, we shouldn't teach about electrons in science class.
quote: Actually, nothing in science can ever be completely proven. Do you think we should teach about genetics in science class? What about population genetics? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-22-2006 01:05 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024