Intelligent Design vs. Real Science

When he designed the animals and mankind, for example, he took soil, intelligently assembling the elements into what he wished to make. In that he, having a higher intelligence than that of the creatures which he made, including mankind, he had the knowledge and ability to assemble and fashion the elements into what pleased him to make.

​

After he fashioned the body he inflated the lungs with his life giving breath, having properties suitable for initiating life into the fashioned bodyHaving the intelligence significantly higher than a snail, mankind is able to transform trees, gravel, forces, iron/copper/lead etc ore, oil, etc into a beautiful home. The snail's intelligence cannot comprehend how mankind made the home, but humans who do not understand electromagnetism, wood processing and how to make plastic etc, who do not build homes observe that it can be done.We, like the snail observe ordered complex systems, organisms and forces etc existing. Having higher intelligence than the snail, however, we can observe corroborating evidences of the Biblical god, Jehovah via the prophecies, archeological phenomena and historical events which are supportive to the existence of an intelligent designer.Thus the topic debate of this thread, Intelligent Design vs Real Science boils down to debating the evidence supportive to such a designer.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

How did he do that Buz, did he move genes around using a pipette or just his fingers. How do that work Buz, what exactly is it in that magic breath that is life giving? What are those properties? What is their chemical makeup? No Buz, the issue is that there is a model in real science while there is NO model or even knowledge to be gained in Inept Design.Try providing a model.ID will become scientific when, and only when, a model is presented and tested that explains how the designer interacts to control outcomes. Of course, once that happens the designer is no longer relevant except as an historical footnote or in the case of product liability suits.Edited by jar, : add last paragraph

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I see you didnt pay very close attention in the thread i had concerning the matter of intelligent designThe model is no different than yours, except for the fact that it is not so involved because it does not need to be overly involvedAn elaborate examination such as yours only exists because you examine every detail in nature that is provided in nature.ID is an intial examination of obvious order, the likes of which are necessarily the product of design. No other or more involved examination is required to produce this very scientific factHowever, if one does choose to examine closer or over and over the results will be the sameTo deny that ID has a model is to deny that you yourself have a model, because ours is no different, just not as involvedAll you need to do to demonstrate that ID is not scientific is to prove that we do not have a method or modelNow how in the world would you ever do that? Asserting there is no model and demonstrating it logically are two different things. Try the latterExamination is just examination, no matter the depth or involvementI am surprised you did not learn this from the previous threadFurther, Im not sure how you arrived at the comical conclusion that after discovering the model, that the designer is somehow irrelevent. That doesnt even follow logicallyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You have no model. You have nothing but a priori belief.We have asked creationists masquerading as IDers time and time again to provide the method for determining what is designed and what is not designed. We have yet to receive an answer that fits the scientific model. All we get is "I know design when I see it" (akin to a former Supreme Court Justice's method for identifying obscenity).You even admit this yourself by your quote above. "Obvious order" is what you say it is, not something for which you can devise a set of rules to differentiate from "obvious disorder" or "naturally occurring" etc.If you disagree, just provide a set of rules to identify this "obvious order." If it is to obvious it should be easy for you to do.Remember, your rules have to differentiate between "obvious order" and natural occurrences, and those rules must be consistent and highly accurate or they are useless. I just offered you a way to demonstrate that ID is scientific. Show us the method, the rules, for differentiating design from non-design.Until you start to follow the scientific method you have no claim to be doing science.(Actually, what you are doing is the exact opposite of science. You are assuming your answer based on scripture and the like and rejecting anything that does not conform. That's the opposite of science! And you're not fooling anyone who knows something about how science works.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

When you present the model for how the designer intervenes then perhaps we can discuss it. Simply continuing to say it is the same model means nothing.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

But you are missing the point entirely. Asking someone to provide you a model for ID ignores several obvious points1. That you have a model and we do not for the explanation of things, you do not
2. That your model is something more than simple explanations of things, it is not
3. That our model of identifying something is different than yours, it is not
4. That your "model" can demonstrate it is simply and soley natural order, it cannot
5. That your "model" can remove the premise of demonstratable order, or even if it appears to be ordered, it cannotThese assumptions on your behalf, leave ID as not only a model for the explanation of things but makes it as an scientific investigation as any providedUnless you you can demonstrate why the above assumptions are somehow not applicable or invalidDawn Bertot

Dawn, science does have models and theories to explain those models; ID has neither models nor theories.Science has a methodologies for working with evidence to build hypotheses, models, and theories; ID has no demonstrable methodologies.Science, in particular archaeology, has methodologies for determining whether something was designed; ID has demonstrated no methodology for detecting or determining design.We have repeatedly requested that you stop bullshitting and that you present ID's methodology for detecting and determining design. You persist in refusing to present any methodology and instead just keep repeating the same old bullshit, thus implicitly admitting that you have nothing. Assuming design in everthing a priori serves no practical purpose -- recall the folk analysis of "assume" such that it makes an ass out of everybody. What possible use can the a priori assumption of design have for understanding how a particular natural phenomenon works?You want to have ID taught in the public schools. What educational value could that possibly have? What happens when it is taught to schoolchildren? We see the products of fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christian upbringing and education, where ID and other aspects of creationism are taught non-stop: a generation whom you consider to be slackard hangers-on who merely associate with Christianity because they are deconverting from Christianity in droves.Dawn, if you actually have some actual support for ID, then please present it and stop bullshitting.

You clearly dont understand simple reasoning. Showing how he intervenes is absolutely not necessary, if I can demonstrate in an examination and in logical form the order that indicates that he does.Youve mixed up two things where one is not required for the otherHow presumptuous of you Jar to jump from point A to C, sidestepping B, by assuming I need a model other than that which I already haveYou need to demonstrate that my clearly existing model is not sufficient to the purpose that it is provides, to demonstrate clear order in the nature of thingsSince you cannot do this it follows logically that it is not only a Model but it is exacally the same as nyone else usesBesides all of that,what specifically does your "model" provide to us that IDs does not?

I'm not missing the point at all.You have been asked time and time again to provide any consistent rules for differentiating design from non-design. You can't do it.Until you can show some method for distinguishing design you are at the "I know it when I see it" stage.And that's not science, that's religious belief.Now either present some rules for distinguishing design or stop pretending ID is science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

My simple friend try and understand how reason and critical thinking works. I have repeadely provided you with a model, by simple examination, observation and conclusions, not any different than yours.If I am making assumptions, yours are much worse and you dont even see itNow watch Dewise, if mine is not a model then show howA. It is not an examination
B. Show why that examination process is not a model
C. Show why the conclusions of that examination oand model do not follow the same rules as your model
D. Show why the conclusions of the ID model arent as valid as any reached by the SMYou cant jump from point A to C by assuming all these things concerning our methodologyWhen you can demonstrate that the conclusions reached by the SM, ie, by soley natural causes is any more valid than the clearly observable order, you will have demonstrated that we have no model and yours is superiorbecause you dont understand simple reasoning, you think you are justified in your assumption that we have no modelShow the above points ot be invalid then you will be justified in your assumptions

So then you wont make an attempt at responding to the clear assumptions on your part I have providedUntil you respond to those assumptions on your part I have provided, then I cant take your assertion serious that we have no model, it is not science and you test things differently than we do and arrive at better conclusionsI say your assertion that I have no model is just that an assertion. If I am wrong them break down those thinngs I provided and show whyIt is a further assertion by yourself that I have provided no modelit is an assertion by yourself that my model is not a modelHere is your opportunity to demonstrate why my above points are not validclear, obvious, observable and demonstrable order are not "I know it when I see it"Its there for any scrutinyDawn Bertot

Dawn, if you actually have some actual support for ID, then please present it and stop bullshitting. [/qs]dewise, you cant address arguments with assumptions. i have provided you with a method and a model and all you need to to is show WHY, not assert, that those conclusions are invalid.deal with the assumptions I have suggested you are making, then lets see if ID doesnt have a model and I havent presented oneThe educational value is that it is science and it is very logical. You simply dont like it because it implies creation and God. But that is not what the argument is aboutMy guess is that you wont attempt this because you dont know how to respond to that argumentEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So how do you know? HOW DO YOU KNOW?What rules allow you to predict, with accuracy and confidence, what is designed and what is natural?Face it, you have nothing resembling science. You have belief so strong that you can't even see what you are doing. But belief is not science--it is the opposite.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You resuse to deal with that I have provided. You are again jumping from A toC. I have provided you with a model and you refuse to show why it in not a modelLets just start there C and please explain via the assertions I accussed you of why what I presented is not a model and scientificGive it a whirl

And so you have no model to present.Sorry Charlie, you don't even get the worm.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!