No, one does not suggest the other. This is one of the problems with evolutionists. You are trained to read into data. it means is just because main stream science is rejecting ID today, lends no credence to it's legitimacy.
Good, I'm glad that you see that one does not suggest the other - I wasn't suggesting that they did, only that it appeared that you thought they did.
You make it sound like these guys were just put off until riggerous testing could prove their theories. It was plain old censorship and ignorance.
That's not quite what I was saying. They weren't really "put off", but they weren't entirely discarded either. As soon as evidence to support these ideas appeared, they were brought back out and dusted off, perhaps modified slightly to account for new data, and eventually accepted as the mainstream theories. That's just how science works.
The bottom line is, I don't consider it censorship if the reason for it not being accepted is lack of data. If you don't have data, then your work is meaningless. And I agree that there was a fair amount of ignorance involved - after all, ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge. I freely admit that there are many things I am ignorant of.
Ok now your just talking down to me, and you want me to be nice to you. As mentioned several time, not everyone thinks there is not test for intelligence. If the current test doesn' t pass muster today, a better more accepted test may arise.
No, I'm not talking down to you, and I don't care if you're nice or not. If you can give me a test for intelligence that works regardless of what is put in, then I'll shut up about it. Until then, I'll keep asking. "Not everyone thinks there's no test for intelligence" doesn't count. Not everyone thinks the Earth is round, not everyone thinks that Jesus is the Son of God, not everyone thinks there is a God...I could go on, but you get the picture.
Again as stated before, my arguments for ID are not based on evolutions failure. I am quite sure I will be repeating myself again and again as people don't read the former posts. YOu statement is a canned response that is parroted by anti-intelligent people. A well know tactic to redefine the discussion. Who knows, maybe it has worked on you. Maybe you are ignorant to what ID says.
If your arguments don't depend on the failure of evolution, then why have you spent the last several pages listing what you see as failures of evolution rather than giving evidence for ID?
IF you found a dead body in a room after a tornato, and the body has had some organs missing. Would it be possible to determine if the tornato or an intelligent agent caused the trauma? if the organs were ripped out or surgically removed?
Scientists use tests for intelligence all the time. They may not call it that and someone may not have defined it quantatatively speaking, but certainly it can be determined if intelligence was involved in many areas.
The problems with this are twofold.
1. The "test for intelligence" in this case would be straight cuts and possible tool marks on the bones - unless you're proposing that anything intelligently designed must have only straight cuts and have tool marks on its bones, then this is an invalid test for design. A valid test for design should work for any situation, anywhere. Not just specific cases.
2. As stated much earlier in this thread, you're ascribing human intelligence to a divine being. Why would it have to be possible to recognize design?
I really don't know how to respond to this. I thought you were joking, accept for the insulting part.
The second part was a joke - you were making a big deal about the age of the Bible and the number of books when it had absolutely no bearing on the argument. The first part was serious.
How you connect my post with your first statement excapes me. I am guessing your a young fella. I was equating ID not with the other scientists, who had nothing to do with evolution anyway, but the treatment of their novel theories. Who were dominated by the arrogant mindset of those scientists who were in a position to help and further science instead of stifle it.
No where anywhere in my post did I state anything even remotely close to suggesting ID should be accepted because those on my list were not. You are not reading what is being said, your responses are colored by your bias, and only condidering what you expect me to say or perceive me to say. I don't know which.
No, I honestly didn't see any other purpose to you giving those examples. You claim that they illustrate the closed-mindedness of science, while I say that they show exactly the opposite. I repeat - if science was closed-minded, why were they later accepted?
And you accuse me of talking down to you, and yet try to marginalize me by calling me a "young fella?" My hypocrisy meter is going off the charts. I'll have you know that I'm actually 74 years old - 75 in April. Thank you very much.
(I'm not, but I could be. Don't ever assume to know someone's age on the internet.)
You statement about science some how redeemed itself by redicovering something that whs brought to them 30 and 40 years earlier doesn't impress me. How many other ideas were squashed and have not been rediscovered? all this talk about science being skeptical and scientists only follow evidence is nonsense.
They weren't "rediscovered" - they were never lost in the first place. I've already explained this, so I won't do it again.
Science is as political as anything else, and ID is suffering for that today.
Cynical much? I'm serious. You put out some hard evidence that life was intelligently designed and you're one step closer to acceptance. All you have to do is get the data.
I'll post your original statement for reference:
ID has better a explanation for origins, Evo has none, so thats easy.
ID has .. for digital code, language and information. Evo has none.
ID has... similarity in the fossil record and genome, Evo also does.
1. Designed by an intelligent designer
2. Designed by an intelligent designer
3. Designed by an intelligent designer
At least that's my understanding of ID. Can you explain how that's any different from Goddidit, or correct me if I'm wrong?
Really? Where are you getting this stuff. And you wonder why I am not answering you?
Where am I getting what? Your statement that dogs evolved into cats? I gave you the quote from yourself right above that. Here it is again:
How does evo test common descent? looks at the fossil records and sees similarity. I guess its true. We see minor changes within a species so its obvious dogs can turn into cats given enough time. "Hopeful Guess"
It's in post #157.
Or did you mean my statement that dogs can't evolve into cats? Because evolution pretty clearly states that they had a common ancestor where the two lineages diverged. There's no reason why they would ever return to that point.
My comment was general, it was not meant for your personally.
Ok, thanks, I guess. You shouldn't generalize though - the Pope has clearly stated that there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution, so nominally, all Catholics accept evolution, and quite a few members of other faiths do as well. I'm sure they don't appreciate you generalizing them in with atheists either.
Evolution has everything to do with atheism. What is it about it's definition don't you understand? Just because you have co-opted it doesn't change that fact. Evolution compromises God's word. On several levels it says that the word of God is wrong on some points. When you go there, it is no longer a light, because you now have to deside what you will believe and what you won't.
It only compromises
your interpretation of God's word. For those of us who have no trouble with the idea that parts of the Bible are metaphorical, there is zero conflict. Moreover, as I said above, the Pope has said that there is no conflict, so if evolution is good enough for the leader of my faith, then it's good enough for me.
You are going to one disappointed individual. I don't know how long you have been a believer, but God doesn't tell us lots of things. Why our brother died, or child, why our job was lost or people are allowed to go hungry and children beaten.
God told you how you got here, evolution says he is a liar, you are believing evolution and not God? Or, your are not believing he has left us a correct record and bible to follow. Which is it for you?
What if Abraham told God to forget it unless he layed out his plan first? or Moses, or king David, or Josheph? or a hundred others in scripture.
When you actually look critically at evolution, and get rid of the all the proof that is agreed about. All that is left is common descent for which there is no evidence outside the variation we see today and inference to similarity in the fossil and genome record. Exlpained by common design. The bible says God created living things in segments of time, man being last. This could account for the layers of fossils. There are many assumptions that have to be made to infer events millions of years ago. Or even to assert it was milllions of years ago. That is information scientists just don't have. The problem isn't evolution, it is questioning the validity of the whole bible by the believer. Either it's right or it isn't. The next thing to question is Jesus. God, or just a good guy. If it's wrong on some points it may be wrong on others.
What will you do if you are around at the end times when the false prophet does his miracles and fools the world into believing he is god? Is that the kind of proof you will accept? or will you stick by the bible? where do you draw the line on where it is correct and where it is ok to question it?
Wow. And who are you to dictate my beliefs? That was perhaps the most condescending piece of junk I've read on this site. Suddenly everything makes so much more sense.
