Another Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

Questions for anyone:I hear it said that ID is not scientific because the proponents do not have a clear model of what non-intelligently designed life would look like:1.) Are IDs saying that non-intelligently designed life forms look like something non-living and therefore do have a model?2.) Do Evolutionists have a clear model of what an un-evolved life form should look like? (Holding themselves to the same standard).Opinions?This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 04:08 PM

Thanks Nuggin.I'm probably not on the topic. But I think I mean in terms of ID verses Evolution. SoDo Evolutionists have a clear model of what an (let's say) intelligently designed life form would look like with which they could falsify an evolved one?In an old thread comparing SETI with ID someone said ID has no model of non intelligently designed life, therefore flunking the "true science" test which SETI passes.Does Evolution Theory have a clear model of what a totally un evolved living organism should look like? That's totally non evolved - not less evolved in your #2, which is still evolved to me.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 04:32 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 04:32 PM

Then if Evolution has no model of non-evolved life, how comes its "true science" but ID is not because they have no non IDed model of life?Basically...

Parasomnium,I don't understand your little test. You put two patterns up there. That's all I see.Previous poster: Any fool knows that.To doubt evolution is to misunderstand evolution. So growth is evolution? Anything that grows is evolving? Why would anyone question the existence of the process of evolution if that is the case?Evolution is life changing? Who in their right mind would then dare to state that organisms don't change?Then how terribly ignorant to question evolution (change).Now I see why you guys are so annoyed about arguments questioning evolution.There is a variation to the - primordial soup to human being - over billions of years idea that I do want to explore. It has been proposed that sudden earth catastraphies sometimes cause changes in gamuts (spelling?) caused new species.I don't know enough about it. But I think it was a alternative to something I find literally impossible to imagine as billion years primordial soup to human being gradualism.As for the poster who said that evolution is not about origins. I realize that that is what is most frequently said. But I think it use to be about origins at the time I was in junior high school. I think they decided to distance themselves from origin of life through evolutionary change at some point. Or they decided to return to that and not venture beyond, at some point.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 09:34 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 09:36 PM

I don't think I'll be of much use to your thread Parasomnium.I'll refraim from posting to this one then.I think the issue of the Intelligent Design as possible scientific theory is too serious to subject to this rather flippant little examination of yours.Dealing with graphs is part of my profession though, and the first thing these patterns remind me of are graphic curves of statistical analyzed data.The left looks like a normal bell curve distribution. The right looks more varied distribution. But I can't make any ID verses non ID assumptions about anything based on this.Sorry. You might as well make your points with what you have.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-30-2005 10:06 AM

Parasomnium,I think that there is an intelligent mind responsible for life's existence. Perhaps you see a BIG TIME. I see a BIG MIND. I didn't say at this stage if that is Vishnu or Yahweh or Allah or the Great Invisible Pink Atheist Deity of Quantum Physics. But I see the results of a Big Mind in life on this earth and the fine tuning of the cosmos to support life.Now you can pull me down to some low level and score all the debate points on some little amino acid's behavior all you can. But when I consider the big picture of life on this earth, I think Intelligent Design is a reasonable working theory.I don't think enough time exists for a random process to go from a primordial soup to a human being. I know that you will probably respond that Evolution is not a random process. As far as I can see this just means that Evolution doesn't envolve a personality.I think that some natural selection is an explanation. But the question is has natural selection done everything to take bacteria to spawn off human beings?Who or what that is we may not know unless the party came forward and confessed. But I think that there is design in the way my brain, eye, intestines, sexual organs, heart, lungs, stomach, muscles, tongue, etc, etc. work.The problem I have with folks like you is that you like score little points on some little amino acid or some protein. So I come away saying "Well, she certainly knows more about that little amino acid than I do." You come down to these little components and score lots of points.But when I step back and consider the big picture it is insane to me to surpress the recognition of intelligent design in the mechanisms of nature. So when you finish your little test and most people step back and look at the big picture, they still are going to be compelled recognize that there is design in nature.I'm a computer programmer analyst. Now I could write a program that if large sections of it were damaged or erased, could somehow repair itself. But it would take a lot of forethought, planning, and design.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-31-2005 07:53 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-31-2005 07:54 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-31-2005 07:55 AM

Nuggin,I like your computer analogy. Maybe we can explore that latter. I heard a joke about that. The scientists had six monkeys typing away. They said that given enough time one would come up with a complete play of Shakespear.One day after years of typing away one scientist discovered to his amazment this line on one of the reams of paper on the floor."To be or not to be, that is the 4xz)&f 4sdfo wr7tt asdsg7 sdgs asagf0"LOL! I love that one.Yes, it is the big picture that I come back to. I think there is something to some evolution and natural selection. I have doubts about how much it can be used to explain what I see in total.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-31-2005 12:08 PM