Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What does ID theory say?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 16 of 67 (488557)
11-12-2008 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by subbie
11-12-2008 9:41 PM


Re: Design theory
Since we already know that you don't know the definition of "atheist," "science," "logic," or "evidence," what is the point in your continuing to post here?
We can safely assume I know the definition of "Atheist."
This leaves "science," "logic," and "evidence."
Subbie is playing the "agree with us (= evolutionists) or you are stupid" card. Said card, in this context, seeks to claim victory in the Creation-Evolution debate by defining themselves correct. This betrays a psychological belief that the actual evidence does not support evolution.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 11-12-2008 9:41 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by subbie, posted 11-13-2008 1:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 17 of 67 (488558)
11-12-2008 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mark24
11-12-2008 9:56 PM


Re: Design theory
That's not a claim of ID. ID's claim is that ID is responsible for mind/intelligence.
Your explanation is synonymously true too. I have no idea as to what you are contesting. It appears to be nothing.
ID can make any claim it likes to readily observable facts, that doesn't render it science,
This comment defines ID to not be science. Your belief is explained by your pro-evolution bias. We believe the same in reverse: evolution is not science and our belief is based on our bias.
what it can't do is provide evidence that ID is responsible for those readily observable facts. That's why it isn't science.
We, of course, disagree.
There is only one database of scientific evidence and two major interpretations: Creationism-ID and Evolutionism.
Hypocrisy. Evolution "claims" that mind/intelligence evolved. Isn't that just as "scientific" a claim as ID is making, & therefore is science?
Yes.
I have objectively admitted as much and I have said that since the evolution interpretation is false, having no correspondence to scientific reality, we have the right to say your science is not science. You do the same but not quite as objectively as I do it.
I admit both views are paradigms attempting to explain the evidence. Then I say the ID view is true and the evolution view false. This renders ID to be science and evolution to be pseudoscience.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 11-12-2008 9:56 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 11-13-2008 2:42 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 11-13-2008 6:06 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 18 of 67 (488559)
11-12-2008 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 8:55 PM


Re: Design theory
ccording to a wide spectrum of polling data, half of all adults in the U.S. are antievolutionists;
I don't wonder, given the fact that a large portion of the US population is ignorant to what evolution is, and even to what constitutes science.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 8:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-13-2008 1:21 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 19 of 67 (488567)
11-13-2008 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 10:18 PM


Re: Design theory
Cold Foreign Object writes:
This comment defines ID to not be science.
It isn't.
Your belief is explained by your pro-evolution bias.
I'm NOT "pro-evolution".
We believe the same in reverse: evolution is not science and our belief is based on our bias.
This is true. Though it is not the same as me saying ID isn't science. Since there is evidence for evolution, and NO evidence for ID, I think my statements are more in accordance with reality.
We, of course, disagree.
Yes, quite clearly. So, we should look at the evidence and see what that leads us too.
No, only one in fact, the other doesn't suit the evidence, unless you want to claim the "intelligent designer" creates all and every living things on this planet all the time, and does this so as to make it looked it evolved, down to the genetic level.
I have objectively admitted as much and I have said that since the evolution interpretation is false, having no correspondence to scientific reality, we have the right to say your science is not science.
But, since this isn't true, you DON'T have the right to say it.
You do the same but not quite as objectively as I do it.
No, I do it more objectively, since there is actually evidence for my standpoint.
I admit both views are paradigms attempting to explain the evidence.
NO. Only one is, the other is trying to sneak into the classroom under the guise of science, so they can indoctrinate kids.
Then I say the ID view is true and the evolution view false.
To which I will ask you for the evidence that supports this.
This renders ID to be science and evolution to be pseudoscience.
Oopsy! You made a small error there. This sentence should read: "This renders ID to be pseudoscience and evolution to be science.". Oh, and you're welcome, I'm happy to point out slight mistakes.
P.s.: Oh, and one more thing. From Message 11
According to a wide spectrum of polling data, half of all adults in the U.S. are antievolutionists; therefore it is evolutionists who have failed to convince the majority that their "science" is science.
I think you may remember what's coming next. Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 10:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-13-2008 1:38 PM Huntard has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 20 of 67 (488576)
11-13-2008 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 10:18 PM


Re: Design theory
Ray,
Your explanation is synonymously true too. I have no idea as to what you are contesting. It appears to be nothing.
I'm contesting the fact that your statement "as is" is untrue.
This comment defines ID to not be science.
No it doesn't. Making claims does not render anything science. Making testable claims does.
We, of course, disagree.
Of course you disagree, & your lack of an example that makes me demonstrably wrong is noted. I, of course, can't disprove a negative.
My point stands.
Yes.
I have objectively admitted as much...
Actually you didn't. You claimed ID was science & evolution wasn't.
From message 9:
Cold Foreign Object writes:
Evolution and Materialism is not science or scientific.
ID makes scientific CLAIMS. ID says Mind or Intelligence is seen in nature. Like I said this is a scientific claim.
Now you're backtracking so as to try to not appear to be applying double standards.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 10:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-13-2008 2:01 PM mark24 has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 21 of 67 (488600)
11-13-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by bluescat48
11-12-2008 10:24 PM


Re: Design theory
I don't wonder, given the fact that a large portion of the US population is ignorant to what evolution is, and even to what constitutes science.
I am certain that this "large portion" disagrees with you.
You are not willing to accept that evolution is rejected because it aint true; and that the level of support by Atheists tells anyone with a thinking brain that evolution is Atheism ideology packaged as "science." Since Darwinism presupposes Materialism-Naturalism, which disallow pro-God interpretations and conclusions, the reason why evolution is rejected is invulnerably supported. Atheists have made so called Christian evolutionists their fools and buffoons----I am impressed.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by bluescat48, posted 11-12-2008 10:24 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 11-13-2008 1:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 28 by bluescat48, posted 11-13-2008 7:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 22 of 67 (488603)
11-13-2008 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object
11-13-2008 1:21 PM


Re: Design theory
You are not willing to accept that evolution is rejected because it aint true;
And how do you know "it aint true?" Did your tribal shaman tell you so? And what evidence did that shaman present? Or was it simply a case of "Trust me!" as we generally see in religions?
...and that the level of support by Atheists tells anyone with a thinking brain that evolution is Atheism ideology packaged as "science."
Practitioners of Roman Catholicism, the world's largest religious denomination, disagree with you. As do scientists. Have you ever considered that your ideas are the ones that are kooky?
Since Darwinism presupposes Materialism-Naturalism, which disallow pro-God interpretations and conclusions, the reason why evolution is rejected is invulnerably supported.
So the Pope is an atheist? That will no doubt come as quite a surprise in some circles.
Atheists have made so called Christian evolutionists their fools and buffoons----I am impressed.
So now the Pope and 1.1 billion catholics are "fools and buffoons?"
You sure know how to make yourself look silly. I encourage you to keep posting though, as you and the arguments you present are doing your side no good at all.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-13-2008 1:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 23 of 67 (488605)
11-13-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Huntard
11-13-2008 2:42 AM


Re: Design theory
It isn't.
You agree that the comment defines your opponent to not be science----that was the context.
I'm NOT "pro-evolution".
Self-evidently absurd.
You argue for evolution tooth and nail----that it is a scientific fact. Comments like these should be met with a 24 hour suspension.
Since there is evidence for evolution, and NO evidence for ID, I think my statements are more in accordance with reality.
We disagree.
There is no evidence that micro or macro evolution has ever occurred on this planet. The evidence plainly shows that Creationism is true.
Yes, quite clearly. So, we should look at the evidence and see what that leads us too.
I completely agree.
....unless you want to claim the "intelligent designer" creates all and every living things on this planet all the time, and does this so as to make it looked it evolved, down to the genetic level.
We don't see any evolution on any level. We see nature reflecting design on every level. Design corresponds to invisible Designer or Divine causation operating in reality, and not unguided material.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Huntard, posted 11-13-2008 2:42 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Huntard, posted 11-13-2008 3:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 24 of 67 (488606)
11-13-2008 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 10:01 PM


Re: Design theory
quote:
We can safely assume I know the definition of "Atheist."
Given that I've seen you assign that label to people who clearly are not atheist, I'm not willing to assume any such thing. The evidence indicates otherwise.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 10:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 25 of 67 (488607)
11-13-2008 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by mark24
11-13-2008 6:06 AM


Re: Design theory
I'm contesting the fact that your statement "as is" is untrue.
Then explain why and how.
No it doesn't. Making claims does not render anything science. Making testable claims does.
This comment presupposes that evolution is science because it is testable and because it has tested positive repelling all falsification attempts; and that Creationism-ID is not testable therefore it is not science or scientific.
Several things:
1. Before 1859 the special creation hypothesis was held true by science; therefore Creationism is a scientific explanation-interpretation of evidence. Darwin was able to convince most of his scientific peers that the hypothesis was erroneous and that his transmutation hypothesis correct. This fact renders your blanket assertion that Creationism to not be testable to be false based on the fact that science before Darwin 1859 held Creationism to be true.
2. ID never claimed to be a "scientific theory." ID is a scientific observation. It presupposes the observation of design and organized complexity to correspond----directly----to invisible Divine causation operating in reality. DI IDism would probably disagree with me.
3. Evolution is not testable. Evolution is a supposition AND an interpretation of evidence. The supposition-interpretation is not on the table, eligible to be falsified. Only HOW evolution allegedly occurs is on the table, eligible to be modified (not falsified).
You need to digest these facts.
I will finish your reply ASAP.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 11-13-2008 6:06 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by subbie, posted 11-13-2008 6:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 39 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-14-2008 7:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 55 by mark24, posted 11-17-2008 2:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 26 of 67 (488611)
11-13-2008 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object
11-13-2008 1:38 PM


Re: Design theory
Cold Foreign Object writes:
You agree that the comment defines your opponent to not be science----that was the context.
Yes, but ID still isn't science, while evolution is demonstrably so.
Self-evidently absurd.
No it isn't, I argue for EVIDENCE, NOT for a particular idea. I used to argue for Atlantis, I even used to believe in all that 9/11 conspiracy crap, I was uninformed, I didn't know better. Then I studied the evidence, and came to the conclusion my beliefs were wrong, so I adapted them to suit what the evidence showed. So, if there is ever any evidence that shows evolution is false, and another thing is true I will immediately change my stance, that's what rational people do, they follow the evidence where ever it leads.
You argue for evolution tooth and nail----that it is a scientific fact.
That's because it IS. No matter how many times you say there isn't, there is so much evidence for evolution it's just not funny anymore. The fact you don't except it from a religious point of view doesn't matter to the evidence. If the evidence would show anything else then evolution, I would go with that. It doesn't however.
Comments like these should be met with a 24 hour suspension.
Saying something that can be demonstrated to be true should get someone suspended? I'm SO glad you're not an admin here.
I completely agree.
Yet you don't follow the evidence where ever it leads to. Every time it comes into conflict with your religious beliefs, you claim they, and not the evidence, are correct.
We don't see any evolution on any level.
Yes we do.
We see nature reflecting design on every level.
No we don't.
Design corresponds to invisible Designer or Divine causation operating in reality, and not unguided material.
If there were design, this would be true, yet there isn't.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-13-2008 1:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 27 of 67 (488625)
11-13-2008 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
11-13-2008 2:01 PM


Re: Design theory
quote:
1. Before 1859 the special creation hypothesis was held true by science;
This statement illustrates quite nicely that you don't understand what "science" means. Science doesn't hold anything to be true. In science, all conclusions are tentative, subject to new evidence or a better theory to explain existing evidence.
quote:
therefore Creationism is a scientific explanation-interpretation of evidence.
Well, special creation was an important scientific theory before 1859, but subsequent discoveries and theories have shown it to be erroneous. That is why scientists in the 1860s abandoned it; it had nothing to do with atheism, it had everything to do with the evidence. The ToE explained a great deal, special creation explained none of it, and in fact the evidence was inconsistent with special creation.
quote:
This fact renders your blanket assertion that Creationism to not be testable to be false based on the fact that science before Darwin 1859 held Creationism to be true.
Here you are confusing the scientific theory of special creation from the mid 1800s with creationism as practiced today. The two actually have very little in common. In any event, they certainly aren't the same thing, and the mere fact that scientists used to put stock in one (before the evidence and a superior theory rendered it obsolete) says nothing whatsoever about whether the other has any scientific merit in the slightest.
1800s special creation was testable and falsifiable. It was tested and found lacking, and it was falsified. Creationism as practiced today is neither testable nor falsifiable. It is not science. Your continued participation in this thread does nothing so much as it supports what I said in message 14 that hat you don't know the definition of "atheist," "science," "logic," or "evidence."

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-13-2008 2:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-14-2008 6:32 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-14-2008 6:44 PM subbie has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 28 of 67 (488632)
11-13-2008 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object
11-13-2008 1:21 PM


Re: Design theory
You are not willing to accept that evolution is rejected because it aint true; and that the level of support by Atheists tells anyone with a thinking brain that evolution is Atheism ideology packaged as "science." Since Darwinism presupposes Materialism-Naturalism, which disallow pro-God interpretations and conclusions, the reason why evolution is rejected is invulnerably supported. Atheists have made so called Christian evolutionists their fools and buffoons----I am impressed.
What the H#LL does evolution have to do with atheism? Thinking brain? A person with a thinking brain, who can read, can figure just how logical evolution over creation/ID is. Evide3nce of evolution, no evidence of creation/ID. According to your definition of evolution, the Pope is an atheist. The only theists that I have seen that don't accept evolution are Fundies. I don't think that most theists would like to be referred to mas atheists, because they accept evolution over creation/ID. I'll accept science as defined by Nobel prize winners over fundies any day.
Edited by bluescat48, : spelling

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-13-2008 1:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-14-2008 6:54 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 29 of 67 (488635)
11-13-2008 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Design theory
Most IDists are not Fundamentalists; Jonathan Wells, William Dembski and Michael Behe, for example. The comment above says ID will be slandered as Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalists, by and large, are mostly YECs who accept microevolution, like all Atheists.
Both Wells and Dembski have stated they accept 'microevolution', as does the discovery institute which includes speciation in its definition of 'microevolution', which contradicts your view that species are immutable. Behe goes further and accepts common ancestry as an explanation for the similarities between species. So are these folks fundamentalists or atheists?
Given such a great disparity in beliefs about what constitutes intelligent design, is there a single intelligent design hypothesis, or is it simply so vague that anyone can shoehorn their views into it?
I'd be interested in what you think 'microevolution' is, and why you think it does not occur, but that may be off topic.
Message 7
But the predominant fact concerning paleontology is stasis: species appear suddenly, endure unchanged, disappear abruptly leaving no descendants
If the species were designed, why did they abruptly disappear? What does this tell us about your intelligent designer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 7:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-14-2008 7:03 PM Meddle has not replied
 Message 38 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-14-2008 7:32 PM Meddle has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 30 of 67 (488651)
11-14-2008 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard Townsend
10-17-2008 7:27 PM


who; is spiritual
when; is the position of the act of creation in the sequence of the other acts of creation
how; is the way it is decided
explanation for fossils: from an act of creation there is a beginning middle and end. Obviously the fossil is at the end.
the reason people are similar to chimps: because it's kind of funny to have creatures similar yet different, that's a good reason. Meaning creationists find the reason in the future, instead of the past. So if for instance there would be no contact at all between chimps and people, then there would be no reason why chimps and humans are similar. So basically creationism is focused on real relationships between things, rather then platonic relationships between things.
the unit of design: The classes of organisms were likely to be from the beginning of the universe, including the class of human beings. The rest was designed later. In any case to do intelligent design theory, you should trace back the likelyhood of the organism / species coming to be to zero. Along the way you will find all decisions that made it what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard Townsend, posted 10-17-2008 7:27 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by AdminNosy, posted 11-14-2008 10:25 AM Syamsu 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