Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assume ID is true
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 1 of 43 (167948)
12-14-2004 1:20 AM


Let’s assume for the moment that ID is true and see where that leads us.
If we have something we know is designed we can examine it to get some idea of the designer. For example if we find a wood object with metal on it we can examine the wood and see what skills were used, we test the metal and determine that the designer(s) have metal working skills, then we look at the mechanism as a whole find that it appears to be a sort of trap. In short we can look into the mind of the designer by reverse-engineering the designed object.
So why aren’t the ID scientists examining the bacterium flagellelum to determine god’s mind?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by MangyTiger, posted 12-17-2004 3:09 AM tsig has replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2004 3:23 AM tsig has replied
 Message 39 by Limbo, posted 04-12-2005 3:23 PM tsig has replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 43 (169241)
12-17-2004 2:06 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 3 of 43 (169248)
12-17-2004 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tsig
12-14-2004 1:20 AM


I'm not sure if this is off-topic or not, but there's something I've wondered about ID.
If something like the bacterium flagellelum was designed - especially by something non-supernatural - then why aren't people also looking for evidence of how the design was implemented ? Is it just that DNA manipulation (taking a total flyer on how you'd do it ) at some point in the ancient past would leave no trace in the present ?

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tsig, posted 12-14-2004 1:20 AM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by tsig, posted 12-17-2004 3:37 AM MangyTiger has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 43 (169251)
12-17-2004 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tsig
12-14-2004 1:20 AM


Well the obvious reason is that they already have a good idea of what they would find and they don't like it. ID is religious apologetics and the only reaon it pretends to be science is to try to steal the authority that science enjoys in our culture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tsig, posted 12-14-2004 1:20 AM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by tsig, posted 12-17-2004 3:34 AM PaulK has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 5 of 43 (169252)
12-17-2004 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
12-17-2004 3:23 AM


Preconceptions
Well the obvious reason is that they already have a good idea of what they would find and they don't like it.
You mean they might find something that contradicts the bible?
A closed mind can only be opened from within.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2004 3:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2004 4:17 AM tsig has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 6 of 43 (169254)
12-17-2004 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by MangyTiger
12-17-2004 3:09 AM


Change the DNA and the body changes, then you get different fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by MangyTiger, posted 12-17-2004 3:09 AM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by MangyTiger, posted 12-17-2004 4:16 AM tsig has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 7 of 43 (169260)
12-17-2004 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by tsig
12-17-2004 3:37 AM


I realise that - sorry I didn't make myself clearer.
What I was talking about was some evidence of the mechanism by which the DNA was changed rather than the physical changes arising from the change in the DNA.
For example I mentioned in an earlier thread the bacteria which were genetically modified to produce human insulin back in 1982. I don't know if you can tell by analysing these bacteria that they have been engineered, but if you can that's the sort of thing I meant.

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by tsig, posted 12-17-2004 3:37 AM tsig has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Loudmouth, posted 01-18-2005 11:10 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 43 (169261)
12-17-2004 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by tsig
12-17-2004 3:34 AM


Re: Preconceptions
I mean that they know that they will find things that suggest that the designer was less than perfect and far from being entirely benevolent.
Even if they believe they can get around that problem they don't want to talk about it to much. When talking to relgious groups they can be (and are) open about the idea that the designer is God but they can't make it "official" because their "official" stance is that ID is not religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by tsig, posted 12-17-2004 3:34 AM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by tsig, posted 12-17-2004 5:26 AM PaulK has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 9 of 43 (169268)
12-17-2004 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
12-17-2004 4:17 AM


Re: Preconceptions
I agree, ID proponents seem to be in the strange case of saying this small part of world is designed, but let's not look to close at it.
Odd, not to examine your prime evidence.
/styse edit/
This message has been edited by Flying Hawk, 12-17-2004 05:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2004 4:17 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2004 5:44 AM tsig has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 43 (169272)
12-17-2004 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by tsig
12-17-2004 5:26 AM


Re: Preconceptions
It IS odd behaviour for a scientist. But it is quite normal for an apologist. The apologist is only interested in supporting what he already "knows" to be true. So long as he has a plausible argument (or even an argument that sounds plausible to him) he doesn't really care about the objections. After all since he couldn't be wrong then there can't be any valid objections.
A lot of apologists are very sloppy - because they are so busy assuming that they are right they often miss glaring errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by tsig, posted 12-17-2004 5:26 AM tsig has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by LDSdude, posted 01-18-2005 9:05 AM PaulK has replied

  
LDSdude
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 43 (178075)
01-18-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
12-17-2004 5:44 AM


Re: Preconceptions
You guys keep judging the camel for not passing through the eye of a needle. You critisize creationists for not investigating where they came from, but can you know if there is a God by looking at bacteria? Are you just going to fing His initials on the cell? It's not possible to completely make the presence of God a provable fact. All ID's can do is see how natural processes could not make lifeforms, and then see that these life forms were MADE, not evolved.
And another thing, one big reason the ID's don't completely affiliate themselves with God is because Atheists have crucified any Godly scientists as being non-scientific. What Atheists don't understand is that nothing in the bible contradicts science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2004 5:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by CK, posted 01-18-2005 9:17 AM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 01-18-2005 9:52 AM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 14 by coffee_addict, posted 01-18-2005 10:37 AM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 15 by Loudmouth, posted 01-18-2005 11:02 AM LDSdude has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 12 of 43 (178079)
01-18-2005 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by LDSdude
01-18-2005 9:05 AM


Re: Preconceptions
quote:
What Atheists don't understand is that nothing in the bible contradicts science.
That's not true at all - large elements of the bible contradict science. I would suggest that you do some research before making such sweeping statements. Do you think you are the first person to come here and make that claim?
A question springs to mind: You realise that atheist and scientist are not interchangable? Many scientists who are christians don't think that the bible is literally true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by LDSdude, posted 01-18-2005 9:05 AM LDSdude has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 43 (178090)
01-18-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by LDSdude
01-18-2005 9:05 AM


Re: Preconceptions
No, I criticise creationists for refusing to seriously examine THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS. I'm not asking them to do anything I don't.
IDers have NOT shown that natural processes cannot "make" life. All they do is assert it. And the topic of this thread is they then refuse to examine the implications of that belief.
And no, it is not the case that "Godly" scientists have serious problems. Religious apologists who falsely claim that their religious views are scientifically supported on the other hand come in for frequent criticism from believers as well as atheists.
And do you realise that "nothing in the Bible contradicts science" usually means that speaker will not even accept that science which contradicts his interpretation of the Bible IS science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by LDSdude, posted 01-18-2005 9:05 AM LDSdude has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 14 of 43 (178109)
01-18-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by LDSdude
01-18-2005 9:05 AM


Re: Preconceptions
LDS writes:
What Atheists don't understand is that nothing in the bible contradicts science.
Well, I suppose in this instance it only requires one biblical claim to falsify your assertion.
Isa 40:22 states "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

Here is something to relieve stress.
Assume that a does not equal b.
a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by LDSdude, posted 01-18-2005 9:05 AM LDSdude has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 43 (178129)
01-18-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by LDSdude
01-18-2005 9:05 AM


Re: Preconceptions
quote:
It's not possible to completely make the presence of God a provable fact.
Is it even possible to make the presence of God a testable scientific proposal?
quote:
All ID's can do is see how natural processes could not make lifeforms, and then see that these life forms were MADE, not evolved.
Sorry, but positive claims need positive evidence. Showing that evolution could not have produced the species we see today in no way supports ID. ID needs positive evidence, such as the observation of a supernatural being changing the DNA of a living species.
quote:
And another thing, one big reason the ID's don't completely affiliate themselves with God is because Atheists have crucified any Godly scientists as being non-scientific.
We judge the science separate from the scientist, that is always how it is done. Michael Behe, for example, has published several papers in scientific journals. However, none of his intelligent design stuff has passed peer review. In fact, Darwin was a Godly scientist, so your claim seems to be falling short.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by LDSdude, posted 01-18-2005 9:05 AM LDSdude 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