Proof of Intelligent Design

[Jet Black]

Not even that. It's simply not meaningful to discuss the probability that the physical constants take the values they do.

I know.... this is why I would have argued with the prof that this was a terrible debate from the outset.

 

[Osiris]

You could try to use the universal constants...
This could be viewed as Intelligent Design, since in order for there to be life,
those constants have the values they have right now, a little alteration could
kill all life on earth as we know it...

 

[Jet Black]

You could try to use the universal constants...
This could be viewed as Intelligent Design, since in order for there to be life,
those constants have the values they have right now, a little alteration could
kill all life on earth as we know it...

of course if the universal constants were any different.......

 

[Phred]

This argument for universal constants... it's making a HUGE assumption, that mankind was INTENDED.

Rather vain don'tcha think?

 

[MartinM]

You could try to use the universal constants...
This could be viewed as Intelligent Design, since in order for there to be life,
those constants have the values they have right now, a little alteration could
kill all life on earth as we know it...

Didn't we just dispatch that one three posts up?

 

[Jet Black]

This argument for universal constants... it's making a HUGE assumption, that mankind was INTENDED.

Rather vain don'tcha think?

the whole ID argument kind of assumes that.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

The problem with crediting universal constants to a deity is simple. We are the result of those constants, I believe both sides can agree on this. However the creationist believes that the constants can be variable, but were set this way by their god. The scientists believes that the constants are constant due to that's what we observe, although some break down under certain scenarios. However the scientist can still defend his position with something like this.

If the constants were different, then the universe itself would be different. Galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc would all develope, or not develope in different ways. Life may, or may not develope, in a different form using different molecules to play by these new rules. However this is all speculation since we have no proof that these constants can be manipulated on such a grand scale, wether it be by nature, man, or a god(s).

So the only way for the creationist to verify his claim that the universal constants can be altered by his deity is well, for his deity to alter those constants. Until then the scientist is perfectly within logic to say that we are the result of those constants, just as evolution is the result of the enviroment.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

PS: Yeah, you are pretty screwed.

If I were you I wouldn't go for the win, but for a draw. Agree with everything he says and simply pose the question "Could not God have done that?". He'll have to admit that "Yeah, it is possible, although there is no evidence for it".

Focus your arguement not on theories (unless he's an idiot and throws something stupid at you, however that seems unlikely) but on reconciling your god with facts. This is going to take a non literal version of Genesis. You'll have to explain how it is an allegory about the nature of man and why he needs your god. If you try to present it as a history book you'll go down faster than a blonde at prom.

You'll probabbly lose slightly but it's better than getting trounced if you tried to present an actual arguement that can be falsified. Basically float like a butterfly and sting like a... butterfly!

 

[Theresa]

I found this where you might find something useful. I only skimmed the first of the three links but there's a list of others here:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM#THE%20TELEOLOGICAL%20ARGUMENT%20FOR%20GOD%20(ARGUMENT%20FROMhttp://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM#THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD (ARGUMENT FROM





http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ355.HTM#VI.%20God%20of%20the%20Gaps%20and%20the%20Relationship%20of

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html

Molecular Machines:
Experimental Support for the Design Inference
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm

 

[Arikay]

As the very first link shows, the only way you can hope to argue ID is to falsely link science with materialism and hope its not recognized as a false link, and then go on from there, esentially turning the debate into theism vs atheism.

Edit: although I dont have the link, I remember reading a link that shows how the famed IC mousetrap could evolve through evolution.

 

[Philosoft]

Here's one: http://www.fidelibus.com/mousetrap/01.htm

 

[Jet Black]

I found this where you might find something useful. I only skimmed the first of the three links but there's a list of others here:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM#THE%20TELEOLOGICAL%20ARGUMENT%20FOR%20GOD%20(ARGUMENT%20FROMhttp://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM#THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD (ARGUMENT FROM





http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ355.HTM#VI.%20God%20of%20the%20Gaps%20and%20the%20Relationship%20of

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html

Molecular Machines:
Experimental Support for the Design Inference
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm

thanks, but behe has been largely discredited. There are organisms that have clearly evolved that have irreducably complex systems. for example vancomycin resistance is an IC system, particularly the bacteria which actually require Vancomycin to survive. Vancomycin was only created a few years ago and is an entirely synthetic chemical.