What constitutes Intelligent design?

Heck Taz I would welcome anyone who can defend the Intelligent Design theory but it seems that no matter how often I bump this thread I can get no one to bite.I guess the ID hypothesis has no merit worth defending then.

Hi Sidelined, I am a creationist and I agree it stinks.Have fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I assume a believer of creationism would claim irreducible complexity in somethings seen in nature.......if someone could tell me the difference between that and laziness I'd love to hear it!

Hi MikeMcC, Put your reading glasses on or get a magnifying glass and read my post again.I said it stinks.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Thats something creationists & evolutionists agreeing on something.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

Hi bluescat48, I agree with evolutionists in a lot of things I agree with sidelined on a lot more things.My only problem starts when we get to the orgin of things.
I say I believe God did it. (a dirty statement around here).
Science says hold on there just a minute we don't think it happened that way.I ask, Well how did it happen? Science says "we don't know" then imply but you can't be right.Then I am so unlearned in the sciences that I am constantly opening my mouth and sticking my foot in it as I am sure you have noticed.I said one time I was going to ask a stupid question on this site and I believe it was sidelined that said the only stupid question it the one that is not asked. I think he was implying if I want to learn I got to ask questions. I also think I have to make statements, then I get hammered, then I have to go study, in the end I gain knowledge.Have fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

When you know something and you make statements about it, the information will be appreciated.When you don't know something and you ask questions, your interest in learning will be admired.When you don't know something and you make statements anyway, you'll get hammered.And so we come to this statement from you: Before you get hammered, do you want to take a moment and rethink whether this is really what we've been saying?--Percy

You're too soft on him man! hahaLet's take a trip back in time here....back to the inquisition. Do you know why Galileo was in such hot water? It was because he claimed that that earth was not the centre of the universe.This went against all teachings of the church and created doubt. So all of a sudden god didnt make the sun rise and fall.Nowadays nobody would claim that god makes the sun rise and fall. They accept the earths place in the solar system and universe, but they're moved onto different things.Where ever there is a lack of knowledge, god automatically fills it by default. As soon as there is an explaination for it which completely excludes god, theists and creationists move on to another poorly understood area. I believe it's termed 'the god of gaps'.So the next time you find something you think science cant explain, such as what was present before time existed as we know it, just remember that, yes we're not there, not yet anyway. Look at how much science has explained which was once accredited to God. Think about how much more we'll understand about the universe in another 100yrs!The gaps god fills are getting smaller all the time. Where is he? What's he up to now? Has he stopped creating wonders and left us to our own demise? Is he approaching retirement?

Hi Percy,No just hammer away I learn better that way.I did attribute that thing about the question to sidelined when it was actually cavediver who made the statement. Maybe I should clarify the two questions I am refering too, before I get hammered too hard.I have asked on at least three different occasions the following questions this will make the fourth time.1. Where did the singularity come from that our universe came from? Best answer so far we don't know.2. Where did life come from? Best answer so far. We don't know.Now if someone gave a better answers than these and I missed them I would appreciate it if someone would point them out to me.I know these have nothing to do with evolution and have been told so many times. I understand that.I do get the impression around here that most are saying but you can't be right when I say God did it.I do know there are some around here that do not share that view.Percy my point is we can agree on some things (the point in this thread being one of them) and disagree on others. There are somethings I know quite a bit about. There are some things I know a little about. There are some things I have to go look and see what I can find and learn about them. Here I have to take what someone says.So hammer away.And be sure to have fun in the process,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Correct for a couple reasons.First, "GodDidIt" tells us nothing, saying "EasterBunnyDidIt" has the same value and information content.Second, saying you "Know that GodDidIt" places you in the position of having to put God on the lab table as support.It would be fine to say that in your belief God Did It but you have no idea how.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

ICANT That is not entirely correct. We have not yet established the correct answer to that question however there are models that can be suggested that utilize present knowledge in order to explain the universe.Page not found | Philosophy | University of Colorado Boulder | University of Colorado BoulderScroll down on this page until you arrive at the following titleA Scenario for a Natural Origin of Our Universe
Using a Mathematical Model Based on
Established Physics and CosmologyThis is no doubt beyond most of the people here including myself however the points made in the text leading up to the equationsshould help to clarify any misunderstandings about science and its ability to explain things accurately. Similar to statement 1 and also not quite correct. That we do not know the exact mechanics of the origin of life does not mean that we cannot form plausible scenarios. A big problem ,of course, occurs in the difficulty in defining properly exactly what constitutes life itself.
Is there a definite border or is it a matter of defining a level of complexity above which we humans define as life and below which we do not.I have resurrected an old thread of mine in which you may be interested to peruse for insights into this dilemma.http://EvC Forum: Is there a border dividing life from non-life? -->EvC Forum: Is there a border dividing life from non-life?

Rube Goldberg machine - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A Rube Goldberg machine is a fabulously overengineered apparatus that humorously performs a very simple task in very indirect and convoluted fashion (thus absurdly violating the principle of parsimony).

---

In my opinion, any Rube Goldberg machine would be a product of intelligent design. Whether you would call it good design is another matter.If you have a RG design that can't be built, that would seem to be a bad design.If you have a RG design that can be built, but does not work reasonably well or at all, that would seem to be a less bad design.If you have a RG design that can be built and actually does the intended function reasonably well - Good design or bad design? Depending on how you look at it. It could be either or perhaps both at the same time.That's one thing that has always bothered me, about the intelligent design concept. It's easy to come up with an intelligent design. Implementing that design is a whole nother trick.Moose

Hi sidelined, I am aware of the string theory and there are many, I am also aware of the superstring theory.As far as I am concerned it will create a bigger problem than exists now. As I will ask where that universe came from and we can go back into infinity.I am aware of theories of the orgin of life and how there are those that have tried and are still trying to produce life.So if you would like to give me a better answer than "we don't know" give it a go. Three of the regulars on here have given these answers in answer to my questions.And that is not entirely correct is not a sufficient answer as it is an opinion.Have fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Okay, let's deal with your statements one at a time. It's an unscientific statement, not a dirty one. Says the football player after scoring the winning touchdown, "I would like to give my thanks to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for helping me overcome adversity tonight." He has as much evidence that Jesus Christ helped him as you do that God has anything do to with what happens in this universe. Claims made in the absence of evidence are unscientific, not dirty. It's not that you can't be right. Just like the lottery winner is the beneficiary of blind luck, it's possible to make a correct scientific statement without evidence, but since it's unsupported by evidence it would only be through blind luck. It isn't that you can't be right, but that your statements are unsupported by evidence and therefore unscientific. As has been pointed out, and not for the first time, there are some plausible scenarios, but not enough evidence to choose between them, or even to know whether any them are correct, so the accurate short answer is that we don't know. The same comment applies here. We have some plausible scenarios, but the accurate short answer is that we don't know.The entire history of science, including right up to this very moment and on into the future, is one of asking questions whose answer is, "We don't know," and then doing the research so that we can eventually say, "Now we know." Of course, we can never know for 100% certain because science is tentative. Again, it's not that you can't be right, it's that you have no evidence supporting your position.It's worth pointing out that you're yet another example of someone arguing for God in the science threads, whose purported purpose is to provide a venue for creationists to demonstrate that creationism and ID are science and not religion.--Percy

What is wrong with the answer, "We don't know?" For everything we know today in science there was a time when we didn't know. You don't want to make it seem as if you're finding fault with science for not already knowing everything. Naturally there will never come a time when we know everything - I don't think anyone believes that is possible.I think your real problem is that we're telling you your answers are unscientific, or even wrong, when we don't know the answers ourselves. The actual situation is that while we don't know the answers, we're very certain that your general answer of "God did it" is unsupported by evidence, and that more specific creationist scenarios are definitely wrong (e.g., the universe is 6000 years old) because they are contradicted by the evidence.In other words, while we don't know the answer ourselves, there are some answers that the evidence tells us can be eliminated. So if, for example, a 6000 year old universe were part of your "God did it" scenario, then yes, we're telling you you're wrong, at least from a scientific perspective.--Percy