Intelligent Design / Evolution

[RocksInMyHead]

What you do need to show, is that evolution Cannot have produced every life from the original cells. You have not done this.

No, that's not what he needs to show. He can't show that any more than we can show that God cannot have created the world in 6 days - it's impossible to prove a negative.

EDIT:

My point about proving evolution cannot have produced all life on earth had to with the basis of the I.D. argument. I did not set the standard, they did. I am just trying to hold them to it.

Missed this; disregard my above statement.

What he needs is support for ID, which so far has been limited to bacterial flagella, DNA being a "code," and examples that he thinks disprove evolution.

The first doesn't work because science is able to provide an explanation for it that is at least as robust as "it was intelligently designed." The second doesn't work because calling something a "code" or a "language" doesn't make it so. The third is simply not evidence for ID.

 

[idscience]

No, that's not what he needs to show. He can't show that any more than we can show that God cannot have created the world in 6 days - it's impossible to prove a negative.

EDIT:


Missed this; disregard my above statement.

What he needs is support for ID, which so far has been limited to bacterial flagella, DNA being a "code," and examples that he thinks disprove evolution.

The first doesn't work because science is able to provide an explanation for it that is at least as robust as "it was intelligently designed." The second doesn't work because calling something a "code" or a "language" doesn't make it so. The third is simply not evidence for ID.

First: Science is able to? It is "science that is disputing the evolution of it. Also, you say "science" has made as robust a case as ID has so for some reason ID is wrong? That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for finaly admitting that ID has a robust case. So we won't be hearing any more nonsense from you saying the IC flagellum has been refuted.

Second? Great argument. Under those rules I guess I have to say just because you say DNA isn't a lanuage or code doesn't mean it so. I win!!! no take backs!

I have provided several ID and non ID proponents sources that define DNA as a code, building plan, language of life, storehouse of information. You have submitted.. what??? NOTHING! but your ever must be impressed with yourself, opinion. That is the only reason I can see why you continue to cite yourself as your source.

Third: Oh, what's the point.

 

[CabVet]

Third: Oh, what's the point.

The point is for you (or anybody else) to provide evidence for ID. But we do realize that it is impossible, since such evidence does not exist.

 

[idscience]

The point is for you (or anybody else) to provide evidence for ID. But we do realize that it is impossible, since such evidence does not exist.

the point is the quality of debate here is dismal. The thread is full of people who love to cite themselves as facts.

Try the OP

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is for you (or anybody else) to provide evidence for ID. But we do realize that it is impossible, since such evidence does not exist.

1

 

[AV1611VET]

the point is the quality of debate here is dismal.

I can say with conviction that...

The thread is full of people who love to cite themselves as facts.

... skip it.

 

[RickG]

1

Well AV, I followed the link and read your post and it kind of reminds me of your view of the world. Will the fish actually listen and try to understand the description of the Taj Mahal or just ridicule it?

 

[idscience]

WHat do we have here?

a dozen Atheists and a couple fence sitters who won't take a stand and maybe a theist or two. Is it a wonder why there is so much appeal to accept ideas instead of science, to ignore the mountains of evidence presented (all listed on the original post)

I am arguing here with Anti-Godism. No evidence will sway you, no amount of information will be accepted if it is not in keeping with the no God rule. I understand that. If you accepted anything you would be in grave danger of having to rethink your existence, and that is not going to happen here no matter what is presented. It is not evidence your after its validation.

The same old mantra is getting quite boring. Everyone is out of ammo here. Same guys saying the same things, without any sources just pumped up opinion of what things should be in their world.

You dozen will be happy to hear I am going to let you all argue among yourselves now. You get the great advantage now of posting what ever you like without any critique or standard of evidence, while patting yourselves on the back for doing such a good job "scaring" me off in defeat.

I have left considerable information on here and its all listed on the first post. I have to get back to a real life now. Thanks for making it easy.

 

[RickG]

the point is the quality of debate here is dismal. The thread is full of people who love to cite themselves as facts.

Try the OP

The only thing I got from the OP was that it trashed and ridiculed evolution. I don't see how that has anything to do with an intelligent designer.

We can't see atoms, but we can physically monitor and quantify their behavior and understand their make up. Can you do that with an intelligent designer. But then again, Frank Lloyd Wright was a rather intelligent designer.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

First: Science is able to? It is "science that is disputing the evolution of it. Also, you say "science" has made as robust a case as ID has so for some reason ID is wrong? That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for finaly admitting that ID has a robust case. So we won't be hearing any more nonsense from you saying the IC flagellum has been refuted.

My point was that since a method for it to have evolved has been proposed, it has been reduced and is therefore not irreducibly complex. The problem with IC is that it's binary - it's either irreducibly complex or it isn't. As soon as a way to reduce that complexity is proposed, your argument becomes invalid unless you can prove that the reduction doesn't work.

And I didn't say that you had a robust argument, just that the scientific explanation has at least as much support as the ID explanation, if not more. I was hedging my bets since I haven't looked at the flagellum research in a long time.

Second? Great argument. Under those rules I guess I have to say just because you say DNA isn't a lanuage or code doesn't mean it so. I win!!! no take backs!

I have provided several ID and non ID proponents sources that define DNA as a code, building plan, language of life, storehouse of information. You have submitted.. what??? NOTHING! but your ever must be impressed with yourself, opinion. That is the only reason I can see why you continue to cite yourself as your source.

Have I ever cited myself as a source? I don't believe so. If I were talking about scientific examples, then I would cite papers, but I'm not. As I've told you several times, I'm not well-versed enough in biology to argue the examples. I stick to the logic and the basic scientific principles, which need no citation.

The problem with calling DNA a code or a language is one of anthropomorphism - human beings have a tendency to define intangible things in terms that relate to humanity. Because DNA somehow contains all of the information on every characteristic of the organism it comes from, it is often referred to as a code or a language because that's the closest anthropomorphic analogue.

Third: Oh, what's the point.

I'm beginning to ask myself the same question. You obviously have no desire to actually learn anything or defend your position. You just keep posting attacks on evolution and ridicule.

 

[NailsII]

Of course it is falling on deaf ears. You are a "Life-long student of biological science" and you hand in this for an opposing position? He said, she said, I said? Your argument is pathetic.

You guys spend pages detailing what you can't be bothered dealing with? Maybe you just killing time until someone can come up with something to say? How about some real critiques? Does ANYONE know how to do that?

Somebody, somewhere, somehow, show me a paper, not an opinion, disproving "Irreducible Complexity". Cite me a paper, an experiment, an article that shows a Darwinian process has built a bacterial flagellum?

The gauntlet is down, you face is slapped. Are there any answers to this one question?​

Burden of proof.
You need to find some evidence to support your claim, not the other way arond.
Irriducible complexity has not been demonstrated to be factual, only asserted.
I have no desire to get involved in a slinging match with you, much as though you would appear to want to.
If you want a real debate, open up one in the formal debate area.
How about "ID is not science" for a starter - then you get to prove that it is.
PM me when you're ready.

Are you saying that not even an inference can be made from the DNA code, that there could be an intelligent causation? The only way is a closed mind.
It is called, language, code, building plans, and blueprints for a reason. DNA is recognizable as such. The only source for this type of information is an intelligent mind.

The 7th post on this thread http://www.christianforums.com/t7645294/ is a peer reviewed paper on DNA code. It may not prove anything but to flatout dismiss intelligence as a possibility for this programming, can only be the result of bias against intelligence.

You could make an inference of intelligence from the DNA, but you still need to show how it could not have evolved.
Because even if a designer is required to start evolution, this still doesn't falsify evolution.
Again, you need to ask yourself why any such designer would invent RNA viruses and reverse transcriptase..... to kill of the life forms he so intelligently designed?
I am still awaiting a proper answer on the features of bad design, like the recurrent laryngeal nerve, especially as found in a G. camelopardalis.

Guess I'll be waiting a while then...........

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Burden of proof.
You need to find some evidence to support your claim, not the other way arond.
Irriducible complexity has not been demonstrated to be factual, only asserted.

This is the problem before them, and it has yet to be addressed.

 

[3rdHeaven]

This is the problem before them, and it has yet to be addressed.

If your addressing the burden of proof to show there is a God, I believe nether side can prove it one way or the other. If your addressing ID, again the same holds true, same with evolution.

The burden of proof is rather slippery, because what one man holds to be proof, another will reject, even in the scientific world.

Nether can demonstrate by scientific means and testing that they are correct. Surely you were aware of that?

 

[Elendur]

If your addressing the burden of proof to show there is a God, I believe nether side can prove it one way or the other. If your addressing ID, again the same holds true, same with evolution.

The burden of proof is rather slippery, because what one man holds to be proof, another will reject, even in the scientific world.

Nether can demonstrate by scientific means and testing that they are correct. Surely you were aware of that?

You need to read into the definitions of burden of proof and evidence.
Also reading into the definition of evolution wouldn't hurt.

 

[3rdHeaven]

You need to read into the definitions of burden of proof and evidence.
Also reading into the definition of evolution wouldn't hurt.

Actually you need to read my previous posts too, that wouldn't hurt as well. I do believe in evolution, the big bang, the string theory, and ID, imagine that lol. But who here can prove any of that? Just can't be done. You would need a exact model based on evolution and be able to repeat it several times with the same results to prove it.

Yet despite all that I find it to be not only logical and reasonable, but also most likely probable! Beyond the shadow of doubt? Of course not.

 

[CabVet]

If your addressing the burden of proof to show there is a God, I believe nether side can prove it one way or the other. If your addressing ID, again the same holds true, same with evolution.

The burden of proof is rather slippery, because what one man holds to be proof, another will reject, even in the scientific world.

Nether can demonstrate by scientific means and testing that they are correct. Surely you were aware of that?

Nobody here is asking for evidence for the existence of God, all we are asking for is evidence to support the claim that intelligent design is what caused the origin and evolution of life.

If you want to claim that God created life, go ahead, but then take the subject out of "science". What irritates me the most about all of this debate is that people keep saying that intelligent design is a "science", when it clearly is not.

 

[Elendur]

Actually you need to read my previous posts too, that wouldn't hurt as well. I do believe in evolution, the big bang, the string theory, and ID, imagine that lol. But who here can prove any of that? Just can't be done. You would need a exact model based on evolution and be able to repeat it several times with the same results to prove it.

Yet despite all that I find it to be not only logical and reasonable, but also most likely probable! Beyond the shadow of doubt? Of course not.

Then use the correct terms. Prove isn't the term you should be using.

 

[3rdHeaven]

Then use the correct terms. Prove isn't the term you should be using.

What term should I be using?

 

[CabVet]

What term should I be using?

Evidence.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

If your addressing the burden of proof to show there is a God, I believe nether side can prove it one way or the other. If your addressing ID, again the same holds true, same with evolution.

The burden of proof is rather slippery, because what one man holds to be proof, another will reject, even in the scientific world.

Nether can demonstrate by scientific means and testing that they are correct. Surely you were aware of that?

ToE is supported by 150 years of research the world over, and enjoys MILEs of evidence. In fact, the ToE is the only theory supported by the evidence, there is no competing theory - not one. Surely, as a man who accepts ToE, you were aware of that?