A Simple Request

[thaumaturgy]

OK, that is the first problem.

The second one: we need to identify WHAT are the features of "design". If we do not do that first, then even someone has done a lot publications on ID, you would not know it.

For example, a geologist suggested the Grand Canyon is 200 million years old. Is that a paper strongly favor ID? Why not? What is a criterion which says: Aha, this strongly favors ID?

----

Start to feel the heat? Creationism is much more complicate than simple questions posed by the OP can cover.

"Creationism is much more complicate..."? That's funny. Creationism is anything but complicated. It is complicated only in that it requires an almost limitless ad hoc capability to address questions that an actual model addresses, often before the questions are asked. (That last bit is how we know a model is robust, if you can throw new questions at it and utilizing the model it explains the new information and the new questions without completely gutting the model and rebuilding it.)

Instead creationists have to make up all manner of bizarre ways of monkey around with all of known physics, chemistry and hydraulics to explain their strange world which looks exactly like the world explained succinctly by standard physics, chemistry and hydraulics, but instead must also take into account ridiculously compressed time and the role of a supernatural being.

No, Creationism is complicated by its own failure as science.

Now, back to ID. (Because we all "know" that ID is not creationism, right? I mean we all "know" that don't we? )

ID isn't something we naturalists and materialist scientists came up with...it is something someone appears to have come up with so they could shoehorn their religious dogma into the sciences under the guise of "controversy". The fact that ID is almost always never a positive claim but rather a 'negation of natural processes by use of statistical probabilities', means it has to rise to the occasion and provide a testable hypothesis.

There's a role for poking holes in other theories, but as was discussed earlier, ID proponents could do with a simple logic class so they can learn to avoid the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

If you think ID is a reasonable assumption, don't ask us to provide you with your points. If you think it is reasonable, then prove it with a preponderance of evidence that cannot be more elegantly and parsimoniously described by purely natural phenomena.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm looking for evidence that ONLY points to ID. As for the type of research that could do this, I haven't the faintest idea.

Ha ha, you can wait a little longer for that. No wonder you post the OP. It is no good for anything.

 

[Washington]

Ha ha, you can wait a little longer for that. No wonder you post the OP. It is no good for anything.

 

[Washington]

"Creationism is much more complicate..."? That's funny. Creationism is anything but complicated. It is complicated only in that it requires an almost limitless ad hoc capability to address questions that an actual model addresses, often before the questions are asked. (That last bit is how we know a model is robust, if you can throw new questions at it and utilizing the model it explains the new information and the new questions without completely gutting the model and rebuilding it.)

Instead creationists have to make up all manner of bizarre ways of monkey around with all of known physics, chemistry and hydraulics to explain their strange world which looks exactly like the world explained succinctly by standard physics, chemistry and hydraulics, but instead must also take into account ridiculously compressed time and the role of a supernatural being.

No, Creationism is complicated by its own failure as science.

Now, back to ID. (Because we all "know" that ID is not creationism, right? I mean we all "know" that don't we? )

ID isn't something we naturalists and materialist scientists came up with...it is something someone appears to have come up with so they could shoehorn their religious dogma into the sciences under the guise of "controversy". The fact that ID is almost always never a positive claim but rather a 'negation of natural processes by use of statistical probabilities', means it has to rise to the occasion and provide a testable hypothesis.

There's a role for poking holes in other theories, but as was discussed earlier, ID proponents could do with a simple logic class so they can learn to avoid the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

If you think ID is a reasonable assumption, don't ask us to provide you with your points. If you think it is reasonable, then prove it with a preponderance of evidence that cannot be more elegantly and parsimoniously described by purely natural phenomena.

EXCELLENT POST!​

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Gosh it'll be nice when you all stop talking about talking about the relevant science, and start talking about the science.

 

[Washington]

Gosh it'll be nice when you all stop talking about talking about the relevant science, and start talking about the science.

But that's just the point. So far as I can see there IS no science (ID science) to talk about, only the claim that it exists.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The second one: we need to identify WHAT are the features of "design". If we do not do that first, then even someone has done a lot publications on ID, you would not know it.

Is this not something that should have been done before declaring intelligent design a legitimate scientific endeavor?

For example, a geologist suggested the Grand Canyon is 200 million years old. Is that a paper strongly favor ID? Why not? What is a criterion which says: Aha, this strongly favors ID?

Why would it favor either one? You're making a category mistake; 'evolution' and 'ID' are not the only two scientific divisions.

 

[juvenissun]

"Creationism is much more complicate..."? That's funny. Creationism is anything but complicated. It is complicated only in that it requires an almost limitless ad hoc capability to address questions that an actual model addresses, often before the questions are asked. (That last bit is how we know a model is robust, if you can throw new questions at it and utilizing the model it explains the new information and the new questions without completely gutting the model and rebuilding it.)

Instead creationists have to make up all manner of bizarre ways of monkey around with all of known physics, chemistry and hydraulics to explain their strange world which looks exactly like the world explained succinctly by standard physics, chemistry and hydraulics, but instead must also take into account ridiculously compressed time and the role of a supernatural being.

No, Creationism is complicated by its own failure as science.

Now, back to ID. (Because we all "know" that ID is not creationism, right? I mean we all "know" that don't we? )

ID isn't something we naturalists and materialist scientists came up with...it is something someone appears to have come up with so they could shoehorn their religious dogma into the sciences under the guise of "controversy". The fact that ID is almost always never a positive claim but rather a 'negation of natural processes by use of statistical probabilities', means it has to rise to the occasion and provide a testable hypothesis.

There's a role for poking holes in other theories, but as was discussed earlier, ID proponents could do with a simple logic class so they can learn to avoid the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

If you think ID is a reasonable assumption, don't ask us to provide you with your points. If you think it is reasonable, then prove it with a preponderance of evidence that cannot be more elegantly and parsimoniously described by purely natural phenomena.

First, whatever you have said, you have suggested that the questions in the OP are not proper, again.

Second, ID and Creationism ARE THE SAME to me (I couldn't care less about politics). So, some of your arguments do not apply to me.

Third, Creationism is NOT simple. It is much much much more than just saying God creates. We are talking about science. Science of creation is NEVER simple. All the current scientific facts are part of the creationism (this is why I think the OP is very wrong). Scientific knowledge to be discovered in the future has also been included in creationism. It is a scientific "model", if you like to see it that way, which is much more complete and cohesive than all scattered scientific models we know today.

 

[Washington]

Third, Creationism is NOT simple. It is much much much more than just saying God creates. We are talking about science. Science of creation is NEVER simple.

Care to point out some results of this "science of creation? There must be something that has come out of all this on-going scientific work. Can't have a science if no science is actually being done. And, of course, like all accepted science, we expect published, peer reviewed results. Anyone can light a Bunsen burner and boil water in a flask and claim they are doing science, so to actually stand along side the big boys, true scientists, ya gotta measure up to their standards. Got any creationists who are doing "science of creation" at this level? If not, then creationists are guilty of misrepresentation. And, as we all know, no creationist would ever stoop that low. They're all good, honest Christians.

So what's going on with this alleged "science of creation"? Who's doing it and what are they doing?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Oh boy...

Three pages and there might be some science coming up...

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

If for some reason evolution were shown to be wrong, it would not mean that ID or creationism is automatically right. For YECs show me one piece of physical evidence that the earth is 10,000 years old or younger. If you show the earth is 10kyo or younger then it cannot be 4.6byo this is a proper dichotomy. Show us a piece of biological evidence that species are unrelated, if they are unrelated then common descent is wrong. Dont just tell me that my (established) methods are wrong, show me how your ideas are right.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

If for some reason evolution were shown to be wrong, it would not mean that ID or creationism is automatically right. For YECs show me one piece of physical evidence that the earth is 10,000 years old or younger. If you show the earth is 10kyo or younger then it cannot be 4.6byo this is a proper dichotomy. Show us a piece of biological evidence that species are unrelated, if they are unrelated then common descent is wrong. Dont just tell me that my (established) methods are wrong, show me how your ideas are right.

Yep that's the typical sophomoric debate strategy we keep seeing from the ID side:

1. There are only two alternatives, evolution and ID
2. <frame evolution entirely as a strawman here>
3. <knock over the strawman>
=> ID wins!

Even worse they try to equate evolution to "darwinism" and then point out that scientists have problems with "darwinism" (which they do) and then conclude that scientists have problems with evolution (which most scientists do not).

It is bloody dishonest if you ask me.

 

[Naraoia]

Is this not something that should have been done before declaring intelligent design a legitimate scientific endeavor?

QFT.

I'm rather puzzled by juvenissun's approach in this thread. It's almost like he can't imagine what would support his own position - and then goes on to tell the others they ask stupid questions.

As far as I'm concerned, "What makes you think you are right?" isn't a stupid question.

Also, even if creation science is complicated, why is that an excuse for not being able to give evidence? I think anyone who's studied evolution will agree there's a huge amount of complexity behind the nice and simple "variation + selection => descent with modification" equation. Yet these same people can list you several types and concrete pieces of evidence without much effort.

 

[juvenissun]

Care to point out some results of this "science of creation? There must be something that has come out of all this on-going scientific work. Can't have a science if no science is actually being done. And, of course, like all accepted science, we expect published, peer reviewed results. Anyone can light a Bunsen burner and boil water in a flask and claim they are doing science, so to actually stand along side the big boys, true scientists, ya gotta measure up to their standards. Got any creationists who are doing "science of creation" at this level? If not, then creationists are guilty of misrepresentation. And, as we all know, no creationist would ever stoop that low. They're all good, honest Christians.

So what's going on with this alleged "science of creation"? Who's doing it and what are they doing?

Example one: plant did not evolve into animal. Neither vise versa.

 

[juvenissun]

If for some reason evolution were shown to be wrong, it would not mean that ID or creationism is automatically right. For YECs show me one piece of physical evidence that the earth is 10,000 years old or younger. If you show the earth is 10kyo or younger then it cannot be 4.6byo this is a proper dichotomy. Show us a piece of biological evidence that species are unrelated, if they are unrelated then common descent is wrong. Dont just tell me that my (established) methods are wrong, show me how your ideas are right.

What if I could only do that? You are wrong. And I don't know how to show what is right?

You are wrong anyway. That is enough.

 

[mpok1519]

teaching ID in public schools is unconstitutional, and irreponsible.

Theres no rule anywhere that says "Life is too complicated to exist without an intellegent designer behind it."

My response is, Life itself is complicated; the universe, is complicated; how do we not know that the universe as a whole isn't its OWN sentient being with tiny smaller sentient beings existing within?

How do we know the universe ISNT God?

 

[juvenissun]

1. There are only two alternatives, evolution and ID
2. <frame evolution entirely as a strawman here>
3. <knock over the strawman>
=> ID wins!

It is bloody dishonest if you ask me.

The logic behind it is: If not evolution, than what would it be?

If you can give another alternative, then ID argument won't stand. Otherwise, it could.

It is not dishonest. It is a simple logic.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

The logic behind it is: If not evolution, than what would it be?

If you can give another alternative, then ID argument won't stand. Otherwise, it could.

It is not dishonest. It is a simple logic.

Okay, simple, an alternative would be that everything popped into existence yesterday as is for no reason at all.

*pop*.

No evolution, because well, you can't evolve in one day, and no ID because it was a random happening of chance.

Simple logic...

even if B -> ~A that doesn't mean ~A -> B...

(or in this case if ID implies evolution is false it doesn't follow that evolution being false implies ID).

I'm sure we could comb the shelves of the science fiction section of bookstores for more and better scenarios.

 

[mpok1519]

I dont think people under stand what the whole brackets and til-marks mean. ("~"s and "<,>")

lol

You're better off just speaking in infantalizing tones.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

What if I could only do that? You are wrong. And I don't know how to show what is right?

You are wrong anyway. That is enough.

You are entitled to your opinion. but the difference between yours and mine is i can back mine up with evidence. you just assert and insist.