Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for Intelligent Design-is there any?
b00tleg
Junior Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 08-18-2008


Message 138 of 220 (484080)
09-26-2008 8:52 AM


Does ID have any methods at all on how one might observe an act of Intelligent Design? I ask because its taken science a long hard road to work out the details as to what constitutes evidence, how it should be observed, and how to make sure that experiments with a specific result can be repeated by other scientists. Can we expect ID to offer up any new or unique evidence of its own to support it's claims. Will ID ever make any predictions on where or how design can be observed and verified?
Will someone who supports ID be able to make a statement along the lines of "The process of Intelligent design shows us that....." or "With Intelligent Design, we can that design has been prevelant in life in the past and still is quite active because...."
What observations can be made about the world today that indicates intelligent design at any level other then "its complex."
If IDers, in my opinion, want to be taken seriously they need to start coming up with answers to any of these questions that I've posed. I can't see ID ever being taken seriously as a scientific alternative until something about it is Observable and Verifiable. In summation, I'd say there is no evidence for ID.
Edited by b00tleg, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by obvious Child, posted 09-27-2008 4:35 AM b00tleg has not replied
 Message 154 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 09-27-2008 9:47 PM b00tleg has not replied

  
b00tleg
Junior Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 08-18-2008


Message 192 of 220 (484719)
10-01-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Wounded King
09-27-2008 6:45 PM


Re: Ahem
To: bluegenes and b00tleg (if not all).
TONY: Don't you just hate those religions that walk around so righteous, head so high and yet live by double standards. They have two sets of rules, those for them and those for all others.
Well, The theory of Evolution is just that - just another bad smelling religion - two faced, self righteous garbage. With two sets of rules for nature.
1# All the normal rules of science and nature we take for granted.
2# Special supernatural mystery phenomenon - where normal rules of every day life do not always apply. Where Abiogenesis can and does occur. Where molecular machinery can be spontaneous happen and where complex Information that is superior intelligent software logic commands just pop out of nowhere without any designer needed.
When you bring in your religious dogma into a science forum there is going to be confusion in your head. Fact and fiction are two different worlds man. You need to separate the two.
Abiogenesis is dead. Most wise "evolutionists" won't even touch Abiogenesis even with a ten foot pole now a days.
If you think abiogenesis is still alive theory then lets clear that one up now. It's time you parted with your trash.
What is any of this supposed to mean? Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. Science requires no faith on my part or anyone else's to be true. ID is an assertion. Why must scientists consider it when the majority of the evidence points at an old earth, life evolving from simpler forms to more complicated ones. If your going to claim the evidence needs to be reinterperted, then provide rational reasoning as to why. Why must ID keep coming up as an either/or ultimatum if evolution turned out to be false? If evolution is wrong, its quite reasonable science can start reinterpeting current evidence and/or consider new evidence to postulate new hypothesis'. And guess what, ID might be one of those if there's any evidence to support it.
So, is there evidence that supports ID....scientific evidence per chance?
Edited by b00tleg, : Refining my post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Wounded King, posted 09-27-2008 6:45 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2008 8:54 AM b00tleg has replied
 Message 196 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 10-04-2008 9:43 PM b00tleg has not replied

  
b00tleg
Junior Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 08-18-2008


Message 194 of 220 (484724)
10-01-2008 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by bluegenes
10-01-2008 8:54 AM


Re: Ahem
Whoops, I'm still figuring out how to reply and properly quote other people's posts. I quoted the post I meant to reply to. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2008 8:54 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2008 9:39 AM b00tleg 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