Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2611 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 132 of 264 (545351)
02-03-2010 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Blue Jay
02-03-2010 12:58 AM


Re: One Or The Other
The fact is that we currently theorize that ALL species evolved from a common ancestor by means of natural selection and random mutations because of evidence that shows that SOME species evolved from a common ancestor by means of natural selection and random mutations, and, using Occam’s razor, we can infer that the conclusions from this evidence apply to other species as well.
There isn’t really evidence that ALL species evolved from a common ancestor randomly/naturally, but we conclude that they did because of what we saw in SOME species. But, there’s always the possibility that we will find something that was designed among the millions of things that evolved naturally.
And there's always the possibility that there is an invisible pink unicorn hiding in your ass which is the source of all gravity in the universe..
It's "possible".
Do you have any REASON or EVIDENCE or MECHANISM or even SUGGESTION that leads you to the conclusion that "maybe something was designed but we haven't found it yet"?
How is that argument any better than: "Maybe it was all designed to look like it wasn't designed?"
So, ID and evolution can both be working simultaneously. Therefore, evidence that X evolved is not evidence that Y wasn’t designed; and, evidence that both X and Y evolved is not evidence that Z wasn’t designed. And so on.
Follow the logic in your criteria.
There are two sets.
Set A: Those things for which we have evidence (includes evolution through natural selection)
Set B: Those things for which there is no evidence (includes Intelligent Design)
Set B _ALSO_ includes EVERY SINGLE THING THAT ANYONE ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME CAN MAKE UP ON THE FLY.
So, you are claiming that because we haven't collected evidence from EVERY SINGLE SPECIES on the planet, it is possible that Set B could be happening at the same time as Set A.
Why not take it a step further?
Since we haven't collected evidence from any single ORGANISM which is currently, was previously or will potentially be alive, we can't say definitively that Set B isn't occurring.
And, since we can't determine which of (infinite randomly combined words) is "true" they must ALL be EQUALLY valid.
So, on the one hand we have evolution, tried, true, tested and the basis of biology. The cornerstone of science for the last 150 years. A fact so rock solid that if it were disproven we'd have the throw out literally _ALL_ of science entirely.
And, on the other hand, we have EVERYTHING ANYONE COULD EVER SAY.
ID is as likely to be true as "Burp Rocket Cow Meteor".
Can't disprove "Burp Rocket Cow Meteor" because you haven't collected evidence from EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE across all of time past present and future.
Let's teach Burp Rocket Cow Meteor in school! YAY!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Blue Jay, posted 02-03-2010 12:58 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2611 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 254 of 264 (586963)
10-15-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by barbara
10-15-2010 4:44 PM


Re: evidence against ID requires limits set on the designer
There is nothing natural that explains our existence, not yet anyway!
Do you believe that lightning is magic? I doubt it.
Was there a time when religious people would have made the same argument you are making here about lightning?
Do you believe that rainbows are magic? I doubt it.
Was there a time when religious people would have made the same argument you are making here about rainbows?
Do you believe that volcanoes are magic? I doubt it.
Was there a time when religious people would have made the same argument you are making here about volcanoes.
I think you see where this list is going. So, let's flip the script.
Is there ANYTHING in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the world which has been prove to actually be caused exclusively by "magic"?
How about is there ANYTHING in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the world which was previously best explained by science which is not BETTER explained by "magic"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by barbara, posted 10-15-2010 4:44 PM barbara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2010 9:41 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 256 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 3:51 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2611 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
(1)
Message 259 of 264 (587211)
10-17-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by mosassam
10-17-2010 3:51 PM


Re: evidence against ID requires limits set on the designer
The existence of the human mind is probably best explained by "magic" as science can only accept it with the pithy assumption 'cogito ergo sum'.
So, since you haven't studied neurobiology, you assume that that entire field of medicine is actually a snippet from philosophy?
AND, you think it's more rational to assume that magical elf wizards create brains in a magic brain factor then use inviso-rays to teleport them into heads.
That's your "concept" of _BEST_ explanation for something?
You shouldn't be allow to even use a computer, let alone post to the forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 3:51 PM mosassam has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 8:49 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2611 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 261 of 264 (587234)
10-17-2010 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by mosassam
10-17-2010 8:49 PM


Re: evidence against ID requires limits set on the designer
Your confusion of 'mind' and 'brain' indicates you are lacking in one or the other.
If I put a bullet in your brain, how does your mind fare?
There is no "mind" without the brain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by mosassam, posted 10-17-2010 8:49 PM mosassam 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