Intelligent Design / Evolution

[idscience]

Well, its sad but the back of the class kids have hi-jacked the thread. For anyone interested in some of the real challenges to evolution, go to the OP (original post) on the first page. I have listed the post numbers that seems to have caused this attempt to bury the dissension with pages of one liner replies to nothing.

As the hi-jack continues I will post a reminder every page.

 

[Elendur]

KhaosTheory posted these videos in the thread Macroevolution:
6th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

11th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube


They sum up things real nice.

 

[idscience]

KhaosTheory posted these videos in the thread Macroevolution:

They sum up things real nice.

That is nice but creationism is another thread. This is Intelligent Design which is very different.

Another example of misleading information to try and distract from the problems of evolution. Even if creationism was proved not true, that has no relationship to the untenable hypothesis called common descent.

For those who still use critical thinking. Let's say two guys are arguing about who will win a hypothetical race

One guy has a motorcycle, the other a car with no engine

The guy with the motorcycle points out that the car has no engine so cannot possibly win. The guy with the car argues the other guy doesn't have a car so by definition cannot compete because he doesn't have a car. Does that in anyway change the fact the car has no motor?

Those videos are pretty funny. I will reply in more detail about the vids shortly. Thanks for the chuckle. I was getting a little depressed with the quality of replies and lack of direct answers to evolution problems.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

This is Intelligent Design which is very different.

"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

Verrrrrry differn't.



​

 

[AV1611VET]

"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

Verrrrrry differn't.



​

I agree that there is a major difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design, but both of those definitions above can take a hike.

Creation is the arrival of the universe by Elohim's fiat.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I agree that there is a major difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design, but both of those definitions above can take a hike.

Creation is the arrival of the universe by Elohim's fiat.

What's an "Elohim?"

 

[AV1611VET]

What's an "Elohim?"

Elohim can't be defined in scientific terms, due to science's myopia.

Elohim is God, as the triune Godhead, Who can contradict the Pauli exclusion principle, as well as the Law of Noncontradiction.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Elohim can't be defined in scientific terms, due to science's myopia.

Elohim is God, as the triune Godhead, Who can contradict the Pauli exclusion principle, as well as the Law of Noncontradiction.

Cool, what's it look like?

 

[idscience]

"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

Verrrrrry differn't.
​

​

At the beginning of the thread you will see what ID is and is not. It is helpful to know the distinctions between ID and creationism. The arguments for creationism are not relevant to ID.
Because creationism is based on biblical text, it is used to discredit ID. This is misleading the reader. It is easier to mock creationism than ID so it seams the lesser educated in the two like to combine them.
ID, is based on observation and scientific experimentation. Inference is made from properties of living organisms. For example as stated many times in this thread.

• Digital coding, information theory, and programming inherent in all living things.
• Specified complexity of interrelated overlapping regulatory systems with the building and maintaining of organisms that are impossible to have been built step by step.
• Irreducibly complex structures and systems that need multiple components all present at the same time to be functional. selection and step by step processes do not account for them. Though vague hypothesis have been offered to try and dismiss IC systems they have not.
• The observation of stasis in the fossil record with no evidence of gradualization.
• Genome sequencing discoveries, and function for what was thought by evolutionists to be junk DNA from millions of years of mistakes.

All these scientific observations, along with experiments knocking out genes to assess IC systems, and emergent properties, systems biology point to an intelligent cause.

There is far more here that points to a intelligent cause than does similar teeth point to a common ancestor.

 

[idscience]

What's an "Elohim?"

That is another thread. This is not a creationism thread.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

The only intent of "ID" is to fool people into believing that creationism uses real science, which they don't. ID is nothing more than creationism in a cheap tux. Sorry.

BTW, can you name three prominent people within ID who do not believe the "Designer" is NOT the god of the OT?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

That is another thread. This is not a creationism thread.

Why are you telling me this? AV brought up the Elohim.

 

[iLogos]

The only intent of "ID" is to fool people into believing that creationism uses real science, which they don't. ID is nothing more than creationism in a cheap tux. Sorry.

BTW, can you name three prominent people within ID who do not believe the "Designer" is NOT the god of the OT?

Who here every said ID is a science? On the contrary, science only points to ID.

My how hard non-believers will work to ignore the truth lol.

 

[idscience]

The only intent of "ID" is to fool people into believing that creationism uses real science, which they don't. ID is nothing more than creationism in a cheap tux. Sorry.

BTW, can you name three prominent people within ID who do not believe the "Designer" is NOT the god of the OT?

Because you say to? When you can't answer the science you attack the motives of those who bring the science to the table.

Is it because of the failure to disprove IC, and specified complexity that the motive attack occur?


This is how it generally goes for those watching. This is the condensed version.

1. ID asserts this
2. Oh yeh, that has been debunked, you IDiot
3. show me it has
4. There is overwhelming evidence, do the research!
5. show me the evidence of debunking
6. here are some papers
7. these don't disprove anything, just introduce a possible route with no evidence, just conjecture
8. You creationists think the world is flat
9. ID is not creationism and here is why
10. Your all a bunch of liars in cheap tuxedos.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Who here every said ID is a science? On the contrary, science only points to ID.

My how hard non-believers will work to ignore the truth lol.

Don't you mean the Truth?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

So, once again, anyone presented any evidence of ID yet, or is it all just the usual attempts to falsify evolution?

For the purpose of the discussion, lets agree evolution is false. OK? Now thats out of the way, whaddya got to suggest ID is the right answer?

 

[iLogos]

Don't you mean the Truth?

If referring to the Designer, yes. But the truth is also science simply points to ID.

BTW, here is a Truth there is no escaping. One day every knee will bow to the Lord!

 

[Blackwater Babe]

But the truth is also science simply points to ID.

Show us how?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

If referring to the Designer, yes. But the truth is also science simply points to ID.

BTW, here is a Truth there is no escaping. One day every knee will bow to the Lord!

Who designed the "Designer?" Can you define "design?"

Sorry, but ID is nothing more than, 'Derp, you know all that sciency stuff that all you pansy, god-hatin' science doin' people do, ... well goddidit. Derp.'

Can you name one thing the Discovery Institute has ever discovered?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Every conversation I've ever had with a cdesign proponentsist reminds me of:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."​