Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,061 Year: 5,318/9,624 Month: 343/323 Week: 187/160 Day: 4/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4883 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 16 of 142 (588921)
10-29-2010 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by AZPaul3
09-02-2010 10:33 PM


Re: Life
quote:
I use complex chemistry in continuous action
Since chemical reactions occur on a longtime ongoing basis that involve completely inorganic processes and results, this definition would be very wrong.
quote:
there is no real difference between a creationist and an IDist
There is an extreme difference, in that ID is science based, and Christianity is faith based. For someone to be a christian, they must believe without evidence. For someone to be an IDer, one must accept the interpretation of scientific data as factual. The founding principles of either are complete opposite.
quote:
It is the woo-majik their version of a god breathes into clay figurines.
If you bothered to open a Bible for 10 minutes you would retract your statement before posting, since God only 'breathed' life into man, not into the animals:
quote:
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Genesis 2:7
quote:
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:24-25
You will notice that God did not breathe life into the animals, he only created them, and they were to produce after their own kind.
quote:
Don't get breathed on, you're a rock.
God did many unusual miracles with inorganic objects such as rocks as well. I'm not sure if you were attempting humour in your statements, but if you were, it didn't work, and if you weren't, same result.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AZPaul3, posted 09-02-2010 10:33 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Nij, posted 10-29-2010 7:53 AM dennis780 has replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4996 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 17 of 142 (588928)
10-29-2010 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by dennis780
10-29-2010 7:34 AM


Re: Life
Since chemical reactions occur on a longtime ongoing basis that involve completely inorganic processes and results, this definition would be very wrong.
Nonsense: name two inorganic reactions which are continuously occurring and are complex.
Somebody obviously doesn't understand the concepts of what "complex chemistry" and "in continuous action".
{aside: 'complex chemistry' could of course be a very clever pun, in which case you'd be entirely wrong to criticise it on the basis that inorganic reactions count. Complexes require the involvement of inorganics as any first-year chemist could tell you.
But I'm not going to equivocate on the issue, and take it that in this context "complex" = "complicated". Either way, you're still wrong.}
There is an extreme difference, in that ID is science based, and Christianity is faith based. For someone to be a christian, they must believe without evidence. For someone to be an IDer, one must accept the interpretation of scientific data as factual. The founding principles of either are complete opposite.
Bullshit. We've seen the early drafts for Of Pandas and People. 'Intelligent design' is just another attempt at having religious propaganda inserted into science classrooms by fundamentalist godbots.
At every request for the supposed evidence, creotards like yourself have either ignored the question, attacked the asker or told us that we wouldn't accept it anyway. You're nothing new.
If you bothered to open a Bible for 10 minutes you would retract your statement before posting, since God only 'breathed' life into man, not into the animals: (babble-babble and rabbithole snipped)
At no point did AZPaul3 specify what was created. God breathed life into clay figurines, the exact same kind of woo that you advocate is resonsible for all life.
If you would read what people actually posted for one minute, you would know what to respond with, instead of pre-fabbed quotemining.
God did many unusual miracles with inorganic objects such as rocks as well. I'm not sure if you were attempting humour in your statements, but if you were, it didn't work, and if you weren't, same result.
I'm not sure if you were attempting intelligence in your statement, but if you were, it didn't work, and if you weren't, same result.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dennis780, posted 10-29-2010 7:34 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by dennis780, posted 10-29-2010 8:39 AM Nij has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4883 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


(1)
Message 18 of 142 (588933)
10-29-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Reveal
10-28-2010 9:50 PM


Re: So we're here by chance? accident?
quote:
...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are10^40:1
[according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981].
I'm with you on this one Reveal, but the evolutionists understand the unlikelihood of this, and explain it using mass expanse of time. It would better serve your arguement to address the time issue, rather than the odds issue. Borels Law of Probability is an interesting read if you are interested in more information on this, however, Borel himself in his published works said that his work did not apply to biological odds. Good read however.
quote:
Is it possible for biotic life to emerge from abiotic life?
It's unlikely, but possible. But I wouldn't use the term 'abiotic life', since abiotic means non-living.
quote:
There are seven days in a week, seven colors in a rainbow
There are not seven colors in a rainbow. The human eye only has the ability to see seven.
quote:
Our world is so beautiful, it was created for us.
Though I agree, an opinion of how visually pleasing your environment is is not evidence for ID, nor for creation.
quote:
Those two colors, pyschologically, are the two most soothing colors to the eye(in the visible spectrum)
Again, this would be an opinion, unless you offer a reference to support the claim, but much more likely to be untrue. While some claim that babies cry less in yellow rooms, others support the opposite, that babies cry more often. You could probably argue intelligently either way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Reveal, posted 10-28-2010 9:50 PM Reveal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Wounded King, posted 10-29-2010 8:35 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 139 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 19 of 142 (588936)
10-29-2010 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by dennis780
10-29-2010 8:04 AM


Hoyle's pointless calculation
I'm with you on this one Reveal, but the evolutionists understand the unlikelihood of this, and explain it using mass expanse of time.
No they don't, people familiar with origins of life research realise that the odds of random self assembly of a specific DNA sequence by chance are totally irrelevant, and Hoyle's calculations were not based on DNA self assembling but rather a set of ~400 proteins. No one thinks that a functional DNA coding sequence just spontaneously assembled in an instant from a jumble of nucleotides and certainly not a whole panel of modern functional enzymes.
Even going to the more relevant situation of a functional short ribozyme assembling one would need to factor in more than just the cumulative probability of a specific sequence randomly assembling. Time certainly is an important factor but there are so many essentially unknowable factors involved that almost any such calculation might as well just be made up off the top of ones head.
There are not seven colors in a rainbow. The human eye only has the ability to see seven.
Or rather humans have chosen to arbitrarily classify certain regions of the visible spectrum using 7 terms. Humans can certainly discriminate more than 7 colours, they just won't always agree on what to call them.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by dennis780, posted 10-29-2010 8:04 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4883 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 20 of 142 (588937)
10-29-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Nij
10-29-2010 7:53 AM


Re: Life
quote:
Nonsense: name two inorganic reactions which are continuously occurring and are complex.
First, you would have to define complexity. Is one reaction complex? Chain of reactions??
Crystalization and formation of fossil fuels, both of which produce thousands of complex and unique orders and chemical combinations, and have been ongoing throughout earths' history (based of ToE standards). Both of which have chain reactions during formation.
quote:
At every request for the supposed evidence, creotards like yourself have either ignored the question, attacked the asker or told us that we wouldn't accept it anyway. You're nothing new.
Nor are you. But the foundations of each cannot be debated, any more than gravity. One can believe in a creator, but completely reject the founding principles of christianity, in that Jesus was a real person, and was the son of God, etc.
Using profanity doesn't make you right, it makes you ignorant at best.
quote:
At no point did AZPaul3 specify what was created. God breathed life into clay figurines, the exact same kind of woo that you advocate is resonsible for all life.
No. God did not make man from 'clay', supposing you are attacking the Christian God, that is.
quote:
I'm not sure if you were attempting intelligence in your statement, but if you were, it didn't work, and if you weren't, same result.
Unoriginal. That was so 5 minutes ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Nij, posted 10-29-2010 7:53 AM Nij has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 21 of 142 (588939)
10-29-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fiver
08-17-2010 5:10 PM


When ID Becomes Scientific
Fiver writes:
I think that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience based on the objective measures (definition of science, requirements of a theory, methodology, etc) and I address these in other posts. This post is admittedly much more subjective: there are many aspects of Intelligent Design that have the "earmarks" of being simply a Trojan Horse for Creationism. These are particularly evident when compared to countless examples in history when an unpopular and unaccepted theory became mainstreamed.
The Biblical creationist ID argument boils down to whether ample verifiable evidence for that record exists supportive to that record. The more supportive evidence that can be reasonably verified, the more credible that record becomes and the more susect becomes the methodology of established secularistic minded theory.
The problem for Biblical creationist IDists becomes the need to debate evidence considered too religious, too philosophical and too cultural for the science fora for corroborating existing physical archeological, historical and scientific research also attributed to supporting the Biblical record.
Religious, philosophical and cultural data, when supportive to the Biblical ID creationist hypothesy, becomes a valid part and parcel of the Biblical ID creationist scientific methodology.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fiver, posted 08-17-2010 5:10 PM Fiver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2010 10:07 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 26 by onifre, posted 10-29-2010 1:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 22 of 142 (588950)
10-29-2010 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
10-29-2010 8:54 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
quote:
The Biblical creationist ID argument boils down to whether ample verifiable evidence for that record exists supportive to that record. The more supportive evidence that can be reasonably verified, the more credible that record becomes and the more susect becomes the methodology of established secularistic minded theory.
The rest of us don't find fraud and falsehood and misrepresentation to be very credible. Neither do we consider it to be science.
The leaders of the ID movement would agree with us at least as far as pointing out that your arguments are not scientific (even those that some of them might believe) - and they do NOT use any of them in their "scientific" literature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 8:54 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 11:33 AM PaulK has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 23 of 142 (588969)
10-29-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
10-29-2010 10:07 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
PaulK writes:
The leaders of the ID movement would agree with us at least as far as pointing out that your arguments are not scientific (even those that some of them might believe) - and they do NOT use any of them in their "scientific" literature.
Perhaps this is why they fall short of aired corroborating evidenced data in this area.
Leaders like ICR, do btw, apply some of this evidence that secularists consider non-scientific. Their hypothesis premise, for example, relative to their research would not be considered scientific in the EvC science fora.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2010 10:07 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Son, posted 10-29-2010 11:42 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2010 11:51 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 10-29-2010 5:16 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 24 of 142 (588972)
10-29-2010 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
10-29-2010 11:33 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
First: (not including Buzsaw but I didn't want to make 2 posts) Wayforward and those who responded to him are off-topic. The subject was about why ID that pretended to do science was so different from contested scientific theories in its approach.
And if I understood you well, Buzsaw, you're saying that I.D is in fact not science (as understood and practiced by the scientific community) so it's the reason it's unlike the contested scientific theories that arose through time? Does it mean you agree it shouldn't be taught in science classes? I'm asking because I was under the impression that Fiver adressed mostly Idists who wanted to put ID in science classes.
Edited by Son, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 11:33 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 8:49 PM Son has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 25 of 142 (588973)
10-29-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
10-29-2010 11:33 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
quote:
Perhaps this is why they fall short of aired corroborating evidenced data in this area.
ROTFL ! No, if they used your "evidence" they would look even worse than they already do - even more dishonest and even more obviously unscientific and religious
quote:
Leaders like ICR, do btw, apply some of this evidence that secularists consider non-scientific. Their hypothesis premise, for example, relative to their research would not be considered scientific in the EvC science fora.
The ICR is a YEC group. Here is what an ICR leader says about the ID movement:
But the ID people (creation by Intelligent Design) insist that these are two different systems and that Intelligent Design is certainly not Scientific Creationismespecially not Biblical Creationism. They feel it best to leave the Bible and the Biblical God out of the argument entirely
Later in the article he accuses the "Intelligent Design Theorists" of "ignoring God".
The ICR is not a "leader" of the ID movement - and agrees with me that the ID movement tries to avoid using religious apologetics like yours altogether.
Edited by PaulK, : Added link
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 11:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3057 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 26 of 142 (588989)
10-29-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
10-29-2010 8:54 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
The Biblical creationist ID argument boils down to
...God did it. And that is not an answer, even if the Bible were all true and god actually exists. It still doesn't answer how and that is the important part.
Newton reached the point in his research where he could go no further and proposed and intelligent designer to solve the question of gravity. Issac Newton, one of the greatest minds to grace science, was an IDist. But that just goes to show you just how "nothing" ID is, when even if someone like Newton proposes it, it is still worthless as an answer.
There is no getting around that fact, which will forever leave ID irrelevant to any question about nature.
- Oni

"I am sure all of your friends are charmed by your flavored words, but they hardly are of any use in a discussion among gentlemen. ~ JBR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 8:54 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 8:59 PM onifre has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 27 of 142 (589008)
10-29-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Buzsaw
10-29-2010 11:33 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Perhaps this is why they fall short of aired corroborating evidenced data in this area.
Leaders like ICR, do btw, apply some of this evidence that secularists consider non-scientific. Their hypothesis premise, for example, relative to their research would not be considered scientific in the EvC science fora.
More importantly, what is the null hypothesis? What observations, if made, would be inconsistent with ID?
What mixture of characteristics in a fossil would be inconsistent with ID?
What types of shared genetic markers between species would be inconsistent with ID?
The null hypothesis is just as important as the hypothesis, a fact that most IDers ignore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 11:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 28 of 142 (589029)
10-29-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Son
10-29-2010 11:42 AM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
Son writes:
And if I understood you well, Buzsaw, you're saying that I.D is in fact not science (as understood and practiced by the scientific community) so it's the reason it's unlike the contested scientific theories that arose through time? Does it mean you agree it shouldn't be taught in science classes? I'm asking because I was under the impression that Fiver adressed mostly Idists who wanted to put ID in science classes.
If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID, including that evidence which conventional science disallows.
By it's nature, ID implicates creationism and creationism implicates a power/energy. existing in the Universe, capable of creating and designing things in the universe.
The ID hypothesis, especially that of the Biblical record must debate with half our brains/evidence quietly hid behind our backs.
A number of years ago, here at EvC I debated the highly esteemed physicist member, Eta Carena on what if the sun were relatively suddenly created?. My argument was that if the sun were relatively suddenly created as per the Biblical record, it would appear to be over 30 million years old because, as I understand, it takes that long for the average protostar to become a full fledged star.
Eta became very angry and caustic towards me in that debate, but he never effectively refuted my argument.
Some of these kinds of arguments involve what the science constituency regard as religious, philosophical, etc.
Bottom line: If you want an objective debate between secularists and Biblical creationists but you disallow any evidence not physical/natural, you kill the debate. Thus the scientifially astute creationists who show up don't stay long.
This follows through in the field of education. In the science departments, one must follow the secular line for employment. Thus the evidence for ID is never known by the young impressional empty minds waiting to be filled with knowledge. They graduate with their minds programmed by the assembly line of secularism.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Son, posted 10-29-2010 11:42 AM Son has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 9:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2010 9:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2010 10:37 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2010 6:22 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 34 by Percy, posted 10-30-2010 9:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 11-01-2010 1:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 37 by nwr, posted 11-01-2010 2:58 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 38 by jar, posted 11-01-2010 3:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 29 of 142 (589033)
10-29-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by onifre
10-29-2010 1:09 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
onifre writes:
Buzsaw writes:
The Biblical creationist ID argument boils down to
...God did it.
That's bare and over simplistic, Oni, but that's it if you limit your understanding of the hypothesis to three little words. Volumns would be required to cite all of the evidence supportive to the existence of that entity, alleged to have done it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by onifre, posted 10-29-2010 1:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by onifre, posted 11-01-2010 5:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 142 (589034)
10-29-2010 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
10-29-2010 8:49 PM


Re: When ID Becomes Scientific
The ID hypothesis, especially that of the Biblical record must debate with half our brains/evidence quietly hid behind our backs.
To the contrary, you've long been free to present any and all evidence you have for creationism. The problem, Buz, is that you just don't have any to present.
If you want an objective debate between secularists and Biblical creationists but you disallow any evidence not physical/natural
What probative evidence is not physical/natural, Buz, but is reliable?
They graduate with their minds programmed by the assembly line of secularism.
Imagine that - they went to secular college and got a secular education. The very idea!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2010 8:49 PM Buzsaw 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