Defence of Intelligent Design

Welcome bran_sept88:Let me guess, you attend the same school as Sweetstuff383 and Matt Tucker, meaning you don't really want to hear opposing (and by that I mean "scientific") viewpoints. You just want to write your pathetic paper that will cover the same old crap that has been refuted over and over, by actual practicing scientists. You know, people that know and understand the scientific method and adhere to it when conducting experiments and stating results. You know, the exact opposite of creationists.I'll make this simple, and you can choose to believe it or ignore it, (and I'll bet that it will be the later);Any defense of ID will be based solely on religious grounds. If you actually write a paper in support ID on scientific grounds you will be writing a paper that is lies. It's really that simple. Intellegent design is in no way supported by the scientific method. Do you understand? Take some time and learn about science and be honest with yourself. Don't just blindly follow the pathetic rants of "whatever", he has no clue how science operates. Don't just "see" what you want to see and stop there. Ask questions. Ask hard questions. Demand to see scientific support before you call it scientific.On more general terms: over and over, people like whatever and Willowtree and TruthDetector (and so many others) out and out reject the ToE as an unscientific explanation of the diversity of life we see on this planet. Yet they claim to accept so many other scientific theories, such as gravity and chemical bond theory. How is that possible? Seriously. Can any of you creationists explain to us how you can accept the scientific merits of gravity but reject those of the ToE, despite the fact that they both follow the exact same logic (ie: the scientific method)? Put up or shut up. Tell us dumd old evolutionists how the ToE fails the scientific method while the theory of gravity does not? Be specific. We want to see valid departures by the ToE from the scientific method. Think of it this way. We have a theory about life on this planet. It's called the Theory of Evolution. We arrived at this theory by using the scientific method to ask questions, form hypotheses, conduct experiments and then state results. Based on thousands and thousands of results, we formulated the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation of what we had found. Where did we go wrong. Exactly what "things" did we do that circumvented the scientific method? And for once, please attempt to answer the questions without bringing the bible into it.

Truthlover:Good point(s).I guess to carry it even further, I'd like them to explain how they can accept any scientific theory? That is, on what basis do they agree with any of them, or do they feel that it is there God given right () to pick and choose which are acceptable and which are not?

Whatever: This has been dealt with repeatedly. You should try reading sometime...you might learn something. WTF are you talking about? ID is nothing but theology. And why do you never answer the questions that are asked of you? Come on for once just answer what was asked, and stopped making stuff up as you go along. Give me any scientific evidence to support creationism and intelligent design. Any. Any at all. One piece. Please. Wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong and WrongWell, whatever, by my count you are 0 for 7 in trying to find fault with the ToE and support for intelligent design. Also I noticed that you did manage to completely avoid answering any questions that I asked of you (as a creationist, not you in particular)...but I'm not really that surprised. So now I will ask you directly: Please, in your reply to this post, give me scientific evidence that supports ID and tell me how the ToE violates the scientific method. Please.

Hi Bran, how are you?Wow, after reading your reply I had to go back to my post and see just what is was I said that could have gotten you so angry. In all honesty, I'm still not sure what is was, but I would guess is was that you didn't like reading the truth. None-the-less, let's move on to your reply. First off, since, in the above quote, you used the word "theory" I assume you are referring to the Theory of Evolution, because the word doesn't apply to creationism. Well guess what Bran, in your original post you never asked for information regarding the ToE, so I didn't feel the need to address it in my response. Second, I never classified you as a religious fundamentalist (but if you want to slide that shoe on yourself and see if it fits...), nor did I present any sort of straw man argument (I will say this, creationisist seem to toss that phrase around quite a bit, so I'm wondering if you even know what it means?). And on what do you base this comment? I'm seriously asking you Bran, right now, to back this up based on anything I said in my reply. What I did say was for you (actually, it was an open invitation to any creationist) to back up your claim that ID is based on science...and as usual, it was ignored and instead you issued groundless accusations and threats. I can't do it Bran. Remember, in your original post you said you were writing a paper in defense of ID, so it's impossible to give you any science what-so-ever in support. Now, if you're asking me to give you scientific evidence in support of the ToE, well what can I say other than you have to be kidding. I am not going to spend a lot of time giving you scientific evidence when we both know that you don't really care. And I also have a feeling that you will probably use this as an excuse to say something that will imply that I don't have any evidence because none exists. To that I reply...try reading posts at this wed site. And if you're asking me to give you scientific evidence against creationism, just continue reading this reply. More goundless accusations. Where exactly in my reply did I ever type the words "oh it is obviously wrong"? But let me say this: ID does not fit as a scientific theory because it presents no testable hypotheses. Or let me put it to you this way: by using the scientific method, we scientists can disprove the tenets of ID claims. It has been done over and over and over.
Again, what I did ask was that for once I would like to see any creationist back up their claim that ID has a solid scientific foundation. And again the request was ignored. Come on Bran, be the first to do it. I'm asking you to please, in the name of your God, please, in your next reply, please, oh please, oh please, give me any scientific evidence that supports ID/creationism. You said that I know nothing about science, which I take it to mean that you think you know so much more than I, so put up or shut up. Give me one single solitary piece of scientifically testable information that supports creationism. One piece. Surely with your vastly superior scientific intellect, and all the scientific data and publications out there that support creationism, you can come up with one piece to present here. Ok, now I'm getting pissed. WTF are you talking about? Did you read ANYTHING at all that I wrote? Please, please,please, show me where I in anyway bad mouthed you friends! I realize that you have since apologized for threatening me (see Bran, I read what was actually written), but it still upsets me that you got all bent out of shape about things that I never said. Why did you get so pissed Bran? Was it really because I (and many others I'm sure) quickly noticed that the canon of your orginal post look very familiar, rather than something specific I wrote about your friends? This sentence is so full of contradictions I'm not sure where to begin.
Lets start with Ok, bran, support the theory of gravity using the scientific method and then disprove evolution by the same means.
You continue with which tells me that you wouldn't accept any scientific evidence that I did provide you with. This is follwed by which only drives home the point that despite overwhelming scientific support derived from experiments conducted by thousands of scientists from around the World that are experts in scientific disiplines including, but not at all limited to, chemistry, geology, physics, astronomy, and biology, you will ignore all of it. And I say this becasue you finish off with First off, notice how this contradicts your earlier statement in which you said "...and would enjoy your scientific advise (I think you meant to write the word "advice" here)..." You do realize that this also means that you cannot take advice from anyone, because we all share a common ancesteor with the apes (yes, even you bran_sept88). Maybe you should look deep inside yourself bran_sept88, and see where the real truth resides. Do it bran...seek your inner monkey.Hey, I like that phrase...seek your inner monkey...I think I'll use it as my signature. (I must confess, my wife came up with the phrase.)

---

Seek your inner monkey

Whatever, hello again and a good morning to you: You are seriously telling me that since insects cannot grow large because of the physiological constraints of an exoskeleton, that this is proof of intelligent design, etc... (ha, sorry mark24, but I couldn't resist )? Seriously? Are you for real? Are you reading this bran-sept88? This is just to sort of mindless, untestable drivel I was referring to when I said that creationism presents no scientifically testable hypotheses.If I'm understanding you, whatever, you are saying that if you remove the exoskeleton, then the size limits of insects is also negated, allowing them (what ever they may be, because without an exoskeleton, they sure as hell are not insects) to grow to huge proportions? And in your case, there's another problem to overcome. You always want to claim micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. Good luck with that one with this example. Small insects loosing their exoskeleton and becoming large organisms would definitely be a great example of "macro-evolution" (or are you simply going to say "no it isn't", like a two year old arguing with his parents). Back it up this time. Explain to me how such an example...your example...would be in any way, shape, or form, micro-evolution.
Anyway, how would you test this? Ah...there's the rub. You see, we stupid old evolutionists can use the ToE to make predictions. Actually we've done just that thoudsands of times, and each time the predictions have been verified by data that was later collected. We would never make such a jack-ass claim like yours because it violates the rules of the scientific method. Are you understaning any of this? In order for your claim (that ID is a valid scientific theory) to be true, you have to be able to not just make predictions, but design experiments to test those predictions. So what's you test?

---

Seek your inner monkey

Darwinsterrier:Yes, those are indeed additional limitations to size. I didn't mean to imply that the exoskeleton was the only (or even the primary) factor preventing insects from growing very large. Back when "whatever" originally spoke of giant insects, the first thing that came to my mind was the fact that an exoskeleton would be incapable of supporting the insects own weight. I have simply stuck with that one factor in my remaining posts. But thanks for pointing out my neglect, for your information certainly adds additional support in showing that "whatever" has no clue.

---

Seek your inner monkey

Whatever:And once again you make a statement that I suspect you cannot support How, whatever, how? I have asked you repeatedly to support your claims about intelligent design. Here's your chance. I am not going to mention anything new that you can addreess in order to avoid my main question. In your next reply, pick any aspect of ID that you want, and support it with science. Follow the scientific method and please do the following: (we'll forego making an observation and formulating the problem)
1. State the hypothesis
2. Detail the experment that was used to test the hypothesis
3. Tell us the results and how they support creationism.That's all you have to do. Three simple things. And remember, don't write anything unless you back it up with scientific evidence.

---

Seek your inner monkey

Whatever, you are absolutely unbelievable. You have got to be the most arrogant, ignorant, blow-hard I have ever dealt with. Do you even believe the nonsense you write? Look back at post 71 and, for the love of God, would you please respond to it accordingly!Jeez, I don't know how you other people at this forum put up with this. NosyNed, how do you do it? How do you remain so seemingly calm in the face of such utter stupidity and contempt? I'm about to blow a vessel here. Does it come with time? I still relatively new here (but hey, I just noticed that I'm listed as a member now...yahoo!), so will I eventually become immune to this sort of stuff?

---

Seek your inner monkey

Good Morning bran_sept88:We all have bad days and take it out on those around us, so I understand where you're coming from and accept your apology. Perhaps my use of the word "pathetic" was a bit strong, but my main point still stands, which is that ID is a non-scientific endevour. Unless you can present workable, falisifiable hypothesis, design experiments to test these hypotheses and then get results that support the hypotheses (I'm making this simple and ignoring the concept of the null hypotheses), then you are dealing with something other than science. I hope you understand this fact. You did say that you do know what makes something scientific, and if that is indeed the case then you have to admitt that ID does not fit the criteria. If you disagree with what I have said then in your next response simply present an ID hypothesis. Remember, it has to be both testable and therefore, also falsifiable. I have asked this simple task of whatever at least three times so far, and have yet to see him respond. I hope you, bran_sept88, do not follow in his footsteps. After all, remember that it was you who started this thread to defend ID as a viable alternative to the Theory of Evolution, so here's your chance to take all that you have learned and actually defend it. Good luck.You close by saying this: Perhaps others on this site will disagree with this statement, BIMHO, you cannot separate ID from creationism. They are one in the same.As for explaining how the ToE can explain irreducibly complex creatures, I first need to see something in nature that is irreducibly complex. I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. Science cannot show you, for example, exactly how the eye evolved. You know we can't do that. But many times on this site a perfectly plausible explanation has been given for just such an event. The explanation follows the guidelines of the scientific method, does not violtae any laws of nature and gives a scientifically sound "route" by which the eye, a supposedly irreducibly complex structure, could have come into being by the Theory of Evolution. To then say: "yeah, well you can't prove it" is simply a cop-out.