Attn IDers, what would it take...?

On a recent thread I got pretty deep into discussions about Archaeoptrix with an IDer.The IDer made the statement that "if it could be shown that dinosaurs with downy feathers pre-date archaeoptrix, that would be a large step towards his accepting ToE."Presenting links to several finds showing just this, I figured the issue was settled.Instead, the finds were discounted out of hand.Which leads me to this question: "Exactly what would it take to convince an IDer of ToE?"edit - condensed, clarified, simplifiedThis message has been edited by Nuggin, 09-15-2005 03:16 AM

Make the opening statement a wee bit more concise and I'll stick it in the Intelligent Design forum or Is it Science? or wherever you want it.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 09-15-2005 01:14 AM

On it, check back in a sec...

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I dunno...I've never had a problem believing in a literal God and His literal Son Jesus Christ without necessarily embracing literal word for word Bible. My belief is not majority consensus in the churches I have attended, however. A sister question to this would be:What would it take to convince traditional geologists/biologists/archeologists that I.D. is valid science?

Nuggin asks:

quote:

---

What would it take to convince an IDer of ToE?

---

Phatboy adds:

quote:

---

What would it take to convince traditional geologists/biologists/archeologists that I.D. is valid science?

---

You only have to look at the behaviour of both for answers to those questions.IDers typically don't accept evidence and logical reasoning because they have their "truth" carved in stone. Nothing can convince them. ID is nothing but a ploy for something else, namely to force their religion on others.Evolutionists have asked over and over for supporting evidence for ID's claims. Also they want ID to make scientific predictions that can be tested. And finally they want ID to show it's falsifiability.This should be a hint. Evidence, predictions, and falsifiability might convince evolutionists, because that's what convinced them of evolution. In other words, they want ID to finally do what it always claims to do, but never does: produce some actual science.So, to recap:
What would it take to convince an IDer? Nothing, they can't be convinced.
What would it take to convince an evolutionist? Science.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 15-Sep-2005 09:08 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

no no, i think that's unfair.divine intervention, visions, or the voice of god saying something to the effect of "i used evolution, silly" might be able to convince an IDer.

---

אָרַח

Additionally, if an evolutionist saw an angelic appearance or a distinct demonstration of a supernatural event..with a friend, perhaps to corroborate...science would be un-necessary to prove God from that point. They might well remain evolutionists, however. I think that I.D. is a house of cards verified by other I.D.ers with impressive resumes. It is a belief in a faith that has been embraced before the evidence was found. Evidence was then "explained" to legitimize it.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-15-2005 02:15 AM

Remember what the Grand Inquisitor said to Jesus when he returned to earth in Spain (in "The Brothers Karamazov", by Dostojewsky): "Why have you returned? We had it all worked out fine, we don't need you here."That's the kind of thought we're up against, don't underestimate the power of an idea.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

i'm sorry, you lost me.

nah, we'd probably go about looking for the sensible naturalistic explanation for it. didn't you watch x-files? it's a mulder/scully problem.

---

אָרַח

What I mean to say is that some ideas are so dogmatically locked in place that even genuine divine intervention might be either dismissed as a hoax by staunch believers, or be hushed by those who benefit from the status quo.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 15-Sep-2005 10:00 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Hey guys, I intended this thread not as a chance to bash ID (we've got lots of those threads and I bash away with the best of them), but as an honest question.Really, can an IDer please explain to me what sort of evidence would be necessary to invalidate their possition?Say what you will about Faith, she's answered this question for the YECers. "No amount of evidence will invalidate their possition."I think that's a wrong possition to take, but it's definitely an answer to the question.So IDers, please, step up. What would it take to convince you? What bit of evidence would you assume wouldn't exist if your theory was correct?Heck, this doesn't even have to be your own thoughts on the matter. Give me what the experts believe would invalidate.

ah yes. but that's to be expected -- they DID kill jesus the first time around too, because he said the wrong things.

---

אָרַח

Nuggin: Really, can an IDer please explain to me what sort of evidence would be necessary to invalidate their possition?Warren: This is easy.Donald Ingber writes:"At this time, the late 1970s, biologists generally viewed the cell as a viscous fluid or gel surrounded by a membrane, much like a balloon filled with molasses." [Sci Amer, Jan 1998].Back then I didn't suspect design. But things have changed. In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.For me it's very straightforward - the cell as a "factory" full of nanomachines = design; the cell as a "bag of solution" = non-design.If the cell is designed, we will find that they look more and more like Paley's watch. Agutter et al.'s says that "Cells are highly ordered structures- so far as their internal dynamics are concerned. Most physicochemical processes are channeled or 'directed' rather than random and suggests that little occurs in the cell on the basis of chance or as a simple consequence of the law of mass action."On the other hand, my position will be invalidated if this "highly ordered state" is really an illusion. That is, if further examination actually returns us more closely to the "bag of solution" view of the cell, my design inference behind the origin of the cell will be discredited.This message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 04:20 PMThis message has been edited by Warren, 09-15-2005 04:32 PM