Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 106 of 173 (266302)
12-07-2005 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by johnfolton
12-07-2005 12:36 AM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
Nuggins wanted to know what supporters of ID believed.
The supporters have mostly been silent. Maybe you can answer the question.
Flew being a supporter of ID answered Nuggins question what is ID.
No, he didn't. Flew is a deist. Most ID proponents believe their is a problem with evolution, and want ID to fit their. But Flew has indicated that he has no problem with evolution. He does question natural abiogenesis, which is not itself part of evolution.
I thought this qualified it to be on topic.
You should just discuss ID, maybe answer Nuggins as to what an ID supporter such as yourself believes it to be. Bringing in Flew is a diversion.
ts not about the evidence of theology (religion) but the enormity of the scientific evidences supporting the mechanics of ID that should be taught in the public schools.
Thus far the amount of scientific evidence for ID is precisely zero. There has been a lot of philosophical argumentation, but no scientific evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by johnfolton, posted 12-07-2005 12:36 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 12-08-2005 12:19 AM nwr has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 107 of 173 (266393)
12-07-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by randman
12-06-2005 6:45 PM


more randiculousness
I asked for you to support this assertion:
randman writes:
The fossil record in toto fits ID, and does not fit ToE.
Specifically, I asked you to...
pink sasquatch writes:
...explain how the fossil record data is predicted by ID theory, or how the data confirms ID theory.
You give me:
randman writes:
lack of transitionals
sudden appearance
stasis (opposite of evolution)
etc, etc,...
Randomly spouting attributes of the fossil record does not describe how it is predicted by ID theory or confirms ID theory.
Since you claim to have written "pages and pages" on this topic, I'm sure you can do better than the above.
I'll ask you slightly more specific questions, since you seem incapable of simply supporting your assertion otherwise:
1. How does ID theory predict that there will be gaps in the fossil record?
2. How do gaps in the fossil record confirm ID theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 12-06-2005 6:45 PM randman has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 173 (266399)
12-07-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Nuggin
12-04-2005 8:20 PM


funny stuff
These things you devote your time to do not matter when you die. Yet you tell me I am wrong, and I know less. That's why I laughed at your post, and said you were lost, because you seem to have fallen victim to the illusion.
Good job oddjob.
quote:
So, keep pretending to sit on your high horse and look down your nose at everyone while you cry yourself to sleep.
wowzers
edit: cry myself to sleep lol
This message has been edited by prophex, 12-07-2005 01:13 PM

these walls are paper thin
and everyone hears every little sound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Nuggin, posted 12-04-2005 8:20 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Phat, posted 12-08-2005 10:52 AM joshua221 has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 109 of 173 (266565)
12-07-2005 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by randman
12-06-2005 6:45 PM


Re: Discovery Institute problems
lack of transitionals
sudden appearance
starlings in america
rabbits in australia
observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 12-06-2005 6:45 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 110 of 173 (266677)
12-08-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by nwr
12-07-2005 12:56 AM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
The evidence for ID is the same as for evolution. It's a matter of which fits the data better. The fossil record does not agree with evolution. It does agree with ID.
Nuff said!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by nwr, posted 12-07-2005 12:56 AM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ramoss, posted 12-08-2005 5:11 AM randman has not replied
 Message 142 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2005 1:51 AM randman has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 111 of 173 (266711)
12-08-2005 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by randman
12-08-2005 12:19 AM


Re: ID is the Missing Link
You have not made a case for that. You have made a faith statement.
But, you have not explained anything at all about many things.
1) HOw does Intelligent design explain the fossil record in a way that distinguishes itself from variation followed by natural selection. Because you are insisting there are not enough points on the graph??
2) What predictive powers does I.D. have. In the I.D. claims, why are the predictions that are claimed are part of the I.D. mechanism.
3) What can I.D. be used for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 12-08-2005 12:19 AM randman has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 112 of 173 (266796)
12-08-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by joshua221
12-07-2005 1:13 PM


Re: funny stuff
What up, P? Are you doin ok in school? What we do every day matters when we die...because all of us influence other people...their beliefs and their destinies.
Anyway...back on Topic!
Nuggin started this thing out by asserting:
Nuggin, in O.P. writes:
Creationists have a very well developed theory - "God created mankind, all the animals, and all the plants in just the way it's described in the Bible."
Evolutionists have a very well developed theory - "Mutations in the genetic code create new traits which can be passed from one generation to the next. Those traits which are benificial thrive. Over time, small changes add up to big changes."
But Intelligent Design, not so much...
Prophex, you are a bright lad! If you were asked to come and talk to a room full of fifth graders in their science class and you could explain to them your personal belief on Intelligent Design, what would you say to them?
Remember....its a science class full of young and impressionable minds.
If you get a sec, tell us what you would say to them kids!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by joshua221, posted 12-07-2005 1:13 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by joshua221, posted 12-08-2005 8:03 PM Phat has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 173 (266984)
12-08-2005 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Phat
12-08-2005 10:52 AM


Re: funny stuff
Sup Phat, I'm liking the avatar. I'm getting a side projec going with this sick drummer, got a song going, gots to present it to the drummer though, he's serious about music, going to berklee maybe. Anyway, the way he approached the topic was with a question, he gave no intimation of his own beliefs, this has become routine, but whatever. I would of gone about it very differently, we aren't fifth graders. lol
I would tell those kids to think more about why they are here.

these walls are paper thin
and everyone hears every little sound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Phat, posted 12-08-2005 10:52 AM Phat has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 114 of 173 (267008)
12-08-2005 8:41 PM


ID Variation
I think I might have made a breakthrough. To explain the vast number of extinct species that mainline ID-ers dodge,I propose a Host of Incompetent Designers and an Almost-Competent One. This will henceforth be known as the HID+ACO Theory. Film at 11.

  
Devin
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 173 (267014)
12-08-2005 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
10-25-2005 3:34 AM


At best, intelligent design can be called "junk science". No evidence has ever been found to lend any credence to the theory. While I do support evolution whole-heartedly, even the creationists have at least the Bible to lend credence to their argument (if you choose to interpret it literally). Intelligent Design is just a feel-good theory invented by those who fear of the consequences of not believing in the Bible, yet still think evolution makes sense. I feel that ID is just an attempt to split the difference between a fully scientific and a fully religious view of the origin of man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 10-25-2005 3:34 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2005 11:33 PM Devin has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 116 of 173 (267049)
12-08-2005 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Devin
12-08-2005 9:19 PM


Welcome to the fray Devin.
The creationists also have the "all has been corrupted since creation" excuse for all the bad designs.
ID has no excuse for bad designs, nor for failed (extinct) designs, and the tree of evolution should be inverted for ID (all coming together into better designs)
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Devin, posted 12-08-2005 9:19 PM Devin has not replied

  
babelfish
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 173 (267101)
12-09-2005 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
10-25-2005 3:34 AM


It's a loophole
It seems to me, "intelligent design" has become more of a mortar for filling in the gaps of misunderstanding or personal ignorance, misrepresentations of evidence, or lack of defenitive scientific discovery to some questions a faith based believer may have... whatever those questions may be.
They seem to accept and even understand many scientific principals and will even go so far as to describe the keystone to their faith as "an allegory." However, they are not satisfied with some of the answers given and place their own beliefs in the holes.
Perhaps the reason that there are no real mechanics to the theory of ID may lie in the very nature of the word "mechanics." For an ID believer, the Big Bang, the formation of our solar system and the Earth, and the Theory of Evolution by scientific explanation seems to be so "mechanical." There is no magic or, forgive me, poetry to the creation of all things. Not to a faith based person anyway. Therefore anything easily explained away by scientific discovery removes just a little more of the magic they so depserately cling to. This is why any scientific discovery that threatens their faith in anyway is scrutinized, criticized, and challenged to the point of absurdity. So long as things remain unexplained, they exist in the realms of God's devine plan, and ID folks are perfectly satisfied with that answer.
There are those who want to finish a puzzle to the final piece and there are those who think they have figured out the puzzle half way through and chose not to finish it, satisfied with the notion that they have pretty much figured it out already. The latter folks would be your ID crowd.
They want to truly believe that there are things we can't possibly understand in this Universe and insert "intelligent design" as their answer, which can in no way be proven or disproven. It just has to be accepted as a matter of faith.
- Babelfish

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babelfish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 10-25-2005 3:34 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by ramoss, posted 12-09-2005 8:23 AM babelfish has not replied
 Message 121 by Nighttrain, posted 12-09-2005 7:41 PM babelfish has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 118 of 173 (267119)
12-09-2005 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by babelfish
12-09-2005 5:21 AM


Re: It's a loophole
Accepting it as faith is fine. However, that is NOT a scientific theory.
Scientific theories go by evidence, by testablity, by the ability to have somethign falsified. The last thing a believer wants is to have their idea of God having an active roll in the creation of life is it being falsified.
That is why, IMO, the promoters of Intelligent Design have turned politics to get it taught in schools, rather than try to come up with
a way to make it science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by babelfish, posted 12-09-2005 5:21 AM babelfish has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by johnfolton, posted 12-09-2005 12:09 PM ramoss has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 119 of 173 (267183)
12-09-2005 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by ramoss
12-09-2005 8:23 AM


Re: It's a scientific loophole
ID movement is about a scientific loophole not a theological loophole. Perhaps the problem is scientists are not willfully ignorant of the sciences and the evolutionist is. This means the evolutionist too understand the sciences. Knowing this fear ID because its based on the scientific evidence and not theology.
This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-09-2005 12:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ramoss, posted 12-09-2005 8:23 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Wounded King, posted 12-09-2005 12:19 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 122 by jaywill, posted 12-19-2005 1:27 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 120 of 173 (267186)
12-09-2005 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by johnfolton
12-09-2005 12:09 PM


Re: It's a scientific loophole
Could you remove some of the 's's from your post, it's really hard to read.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by johnfolton, posted 12-09-2005 12:09 PM johnfolton 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