|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Assume ID is true | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminSylas Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6353 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
Change the DNA and the body changes, then you get different fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6353 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LDSdude Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
LDS writes:
Well, I suppose in this instance it only requires one biblical claim to falsify your assertion. What Atheists don't understand is that nothing in the bible contradicts science. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Is it even possible to make the presence of God a testable scientific proposal?
quote: 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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024