What is ID?

[doubtingmerle]

as i said: it may be evidence that those are a different creation events.

Which only vaguely answers my question, "Why is it that no fossil of a modern mammal species is found below that layer [K-Pg layer], and no classic dinosaur fossil is found above that layer?"

What does "may be evidence" mean? Do you mean that it is indeed evidence? If not, why not?

And what do you mean by "different creation events"? As you appear to be arguing elsewhere that all animal fossils are less than 10,000 years old, and refuse to say otherwise, are you simply saying that dinosaurs may have been created a few hours or weeks before modern mammals? If "different creation events" means a period of time less than many millions of years, then I disagree.

I think there is evidence that dinosaurs existed many millions of years before the first man. Do you or do you not agree?

Let me guess. You will evade the question and pretend to answer, yes?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Great, we can add ID to the list of things you know nothing about. That definition came from the Discovery Institute, as close to the 'official' proponents for ID as you can get You seem to be referring to good old traditional Creationism which I have no interest in discussing with you in this thread

You asked what ID meant, and I am well aware of how some choose to assume their way (definition) is the only way, and since there is no defense for that attitude, precisely why the (and I borrow a phrase from the movie Deliverance) "You don't know nothin' " defense, as in "Great, we can add ID to the list of things you know nothing about" or "You know nothing about science" has become so common here, as well as in general for your side.

And yes, "you don't know nuthin' " is certainly easier than an intelligent argument, I get that, but fact is, as strange as you might find it, you are wrong right off the bat.

in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun
noun: intelligent design

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

And just grabbed this from Wikipedia while looking for something else:

Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God,

Then you turn around and say you want to take God/religion out of the equation?? You first would have us think one has nothing to do with the other?? Then you want to unfairly, for your benefit, do what is done/they try to do, so often here, and create rules that allow you the edge. In this case by censoring God out of the discussion... a very safe choice indeed.

You can't have one without the other, even with your idea of ID.

But if you need to create a win situation farce for yourself here before we even get through the gate, I guess it says a lot for how secure you would be with your argument on a level playing field.

And hey, all that, and we haven't even gotten started. But if you have no interest in a real discussion here, one that allows all ideas, and censors nothing...well, alrighty then.

 

[Speedwell]

You asked what ID meant, and I am well aware of how some choose to assume their way (definition) is the only way, and since there is no defense for that attitude, precisely why the (and I borrow a phrase from the movie Deliverance) "You don't know nothin' " defense, as in "Great, we can add ID to the list of things you know nothing about" or "You know nothing about science" has become so common here, as well as in general for your side.

And yes, "you don't know nuthin' " is certainly easier than an intelligent argument, I get that, but fact is, as strange as you might find it, you are wrong right off the bat.

in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun
noun: intelligent design

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

And just grabbed this from Wikipedia while looking for something else:

Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God,

Then you turn around and say you want to take God/religion out of the equation?? You first would have us think one has nothing to do with the other?? Then you want to unfairly, for your benefit, do what is done/they try to do, so often here, and create rules that allow you the edge. In this case by censoring God out of the discussion... a very safe choice indeed.

You can't have one without the other, even with your idea of ID.

But if you need to create a win situation farce for yourself here before we even get through the gate, I guess it says a lot for how secure you would be with your argument on a level playing field.

And hey, all that, and we haven't even gotten started. But if you have no interest in a real discussion here, one that allows all ideas, and censors nothing...well, alrighty then.

But Jimmy D is right in his way. Your definition "...the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity" is an unfalsifiable proposition and, as such, has no place in a science discussion. On the other hand, some of our colleagues are arguing for the specific ID proposal of the Discovery Institute (Which is what most people think of when they think of ID. They are trying to make it into a falsifiable scientific hypothesis--so far without success.

 

[Jimmy D]

You asked what ID meant, and I am well aware of how some choose to assume their way (definition) is the only way, and since there is no defense for that attitude, precisely why the (and I borrow a phrase from the movie Deliverance) "You don't know nothin' " defense, as in "Great, we can add ID to the list of things you know nothing about" or "You know nothing about science" has become so common here, as well as in general for your side.

And yes, "you don't know nuthin' " is certainly easier than an intelligent argument, I get that, but fact is, as strange as you might find it, you are wrong right off the bat.

in·tel·li·gent de·sign
noun
noun: intelligent design

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

And just grabbed this from Wikipedia while looking for something else:

Intelligent design is a creationist religious argument for the existence of God,

Then you turn around and say you want to take God/religion out of the equation?? You first would have us think one has nothing to do with the other?? Then you want to unfairly, for your benefit, do what is done/they try to do, so often here, and create rules that allow you the edge. In this case by censoring God out of the discussion... a very safe choice indeed.

You can't have one without the other, even with your idea of ID.

But if you need to create a win situation farce for yourself here before we even get through the gate, I guess it says a lot for how secure you would be with your argument on a level playing field.

And hey, all that, and we haven't even gotten started. But if you have no interest in a real discussion here, one that allows all ideas, and censors nothing...well, alrighty then.

Fair enough, I thought I was giving an accepted definition, what you seem to be describing is basically creationism. ID attempts to pass itself off as scientific and the purpose of the thread was to discuss the it's scientific merits, it seems to be a failure so far though.

As for taking God out of the equation, don't blame me, I didn't invent ID.

 

[xianghua]

I think there is evidence that dinosaurs existed many millions of years before the first man. Do you or do you not agree?

yes. its likely. now what?

 

[Kenny'sID]

As for taking God out of the equation, don't blame me, I didn't invent ID.

Not sure what that means.

Fair enough, I thought I was giving an accepted definition, what you seem to be describing is basically creationism. ID attempts to pass itself off as scientific and the purpose of the thread was to discuss the it's scientific merits, it seems to be a failure so far though.

Honestly, knowing this stems from another thread, where the main question was stated in such a weird way, it took me forever just to question my way to finding out all that was wanted was for me/someone to explain how God did what he did.

Those exact thoughts crossed my mind as I read your OP...I'm thinking, what does he want here? Point being, maybe that's why it seems to be a failure so far?

 

[Jimmy D]

Not sure what that means.

From the Discovery Institute:

Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.

It seems that the ID proponents are trying to distance themselves from the bible.

Honestly, knowing this stems from another thread, where the main question was stated in such a weird way, it took me forever just to question my way to finding out all that was wanted was for me/someone to explain how God did what he did.

There is plenty of talk on this board about the scientific credibility of ID, I just thought it was worthy of discussion without getting sidetracked, yet here we are, getting sidetracked.

However, I apologise for my snooty attitude in an earlier post, heat of the moment and all that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

However, I apologise for my snooty attitude in an earlier post, heat of the moment and all that.

Nothing I'm not guilty of often enough.

 

[doubtingmerle]

yes. its likely. now what?

Wow. We finally get an answer.

Ok, dinosaur probably many millions of years before humans.

And Hyracortherium probably existed millions of years before Mesohippus?
And Mesohippus probably existed millions of years before Merychippus?
And Merychippus probably existed millions of years before Pilohippus?

And each of these is progressively more like the modern horse?

Doesn't that prove that transitionals exist?

 

[Colter]

Wow. We finally get an answer.

Ok, dinosaur probably many millions of years before humans.

And Hyracortherium probably existed millions of years before Mesohippus?
And Mesohippus probably existed millions of years before Merychippus?
And Merychippus probably existed millions of years before Pilohippus?

And each of these is progressively more like the modern horse?

Doesn't that prove that transitionals exist?

With sudden mutations transitional fossils wont exist, ot to overlook endowment of adaptation in living things and beings. As young as humans are in the scale of evolution, its better to stick with mutations as an the explanation because trying to find transitional evidence muddies up the issue.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not sure what that means.

It means exactly what it means.
It's the proponents of ID (aka cdesign proponentsists) who insist that the "D" need not be a god. It could be aliens as well, for example.

Off course, we all realise the dishonesty thereof, because we all know that it's just intellectual honesty - not say plain lies -, just like the judge at the Dover trial realised all to well.

They insist on the 'D' being "unknown" just so they can say that "it's not creationism/religion".

So yes, eventhough we all know it's just dishonesty, it's the cdesign proponentsists themselves who insist that "god" isn't part of the equation.

Honestly, knowing this stems from another thread, where the main question was stated in such a weird way, it took me forever just to question my way to finding out all that was wanted was for me/someone to explain how God did what he did.

Those exact thoughts crossed my mind as I read your OP...I'm thinking, what does he want here? Point being, maybe that's why it seems to be a failure so far?

Not really, no...
The reason why you are confused here, is because some of you seem to have adopted the name "intelligent design" to refer to plain old creationism.

The people who came up with "intelligent design", came up with this new term specifically to distance themselves from plain old creationism and make it sound more "sciency".

I must say though, that I find it quite hilarious and ironic that plain old creationists just adopt that term to describe their religious creationist beliefs. It is very telling idd.

 

[xianghua]

And each of these is progressively more like the modern horse?

Doesn't that prove that transitionals exist?

no. its depend on what creatures we are talking about. if we take the fossils in the tetrapod transition: they are clearly cant prove evolution. so if we are talking about transitions between different creatures, they cant prove evolution. but if we are talking about basically the same creature (wolf vs dog for instance) then its possible that they are a real transitionals fossils.

 

[Jimmy D]

no. its depend on what creatures we are talking about.

He's obviously talking about horse fossils, I hope this isn't some pre-amble leading up to changing the subject...

if we take the fossils in the tetrapod transition:

Doh

they are clearly cant prove evolution. so if we are talking about transitions between different creatures, they cant prove evolution.

LOL, No one's trying to prove evolution, that ship has sailed chief.

but if we are talking about basically the same creature (wolf vs dog for instance) then its possible that they are a real transitionals fossils.

Aah, the old 'kinds' barrier. A sure sign that the creationist is wavering in the face of empirical evidence.

What does ID say about 'kinds'?

 

[Kenny'sID]

It means exactly what it means.
It's the proponents of ID (aka cdesign proponentsists) who insist that the "D" need not be a god. It could be aliens as well, for example.

Off course, we all realise the dishonesty thereof, because we all know that it's just intellectual honesty - not say plain lies -, just like the judge at the Dover trial realised all to well.

They insist on the 'D' being "unknown" just so they can say that "it's not creationism/religion".

So yes, eventhough we all know it's just dishonesty, it's the cdesign proponentsists themselves who insist that "god" isn't part of the equation.

I prefer the honest approach here, but can't speak for others.

And I have my doubts their approach is really dishonest. It's a way to get the ball headed in a direction leaving out the conventional God, and if/once your ID is settled as that, without all the "you see it that way because you are religious" interfering, then it might be easier to present the conventional God. You see that as trickery/dishonestly, while it may only be an organized, way of removing complications so it's easier to come to an eventual conclusion.

You are assuming they are doing it under the pretense they think there is no God, when they are only willing to discuss it in that light in order to get at least one point settled.

Not really, no...
The reason why you are confused here, is because some of you seem to have adopted the name "intelligent design" to refer to plain old creationism

Yes, really, and I gave you the reason, the real reason, it's simple, and makes perfect sense, spin it to whatever fits your agenda if you like.

Considering both your replies here, if you don't mind my saying so....nothing clinical, but I think you might be a little paranoid.

 

[Speedwell]

I prefer the honest approach here, but can't speak for others.



Yes, really, and I gave you the reason, the real reason, it's simple, and makes perfect sense, spin it to whatever fits your agenda if you like.

It's not about an agenda, it's about confusion.

For example, if I say "Intelligent Design is fraudulent pseudoscience"

by your definition I am denying God as creator,

but really all I am doing is denouncing the Discovery Institute as a parcel of scoundrels.

 

[Speedwell]

And I have my doubts their approach is really dishonest. It's a way to get the ball headed in a direction leaving out the conventional God, and if/once your ID is settled as that, without all the "you see it that way because you are religious" interfering, then it might be easier to present the conventional God. You see that as trickery/dishonestly, while it may only be an organized, way of removing complications so it's easier to come to an eventual conclusion.

You are assuming they are doing it under the pretense they think there is no God, when they are only willing to discuss it in that light in order to get at least one point settled.



Yes, really, and I gave you the reason, the real reason, it's simple, and makes perfect sense, spin it to whatever fits your agenda if you like.

Considering both your replies here, if you don't mind my saying so....nothing clinical, but I think you might be a little paranoid.

That is more or less correct, except for the "point" that the Discovery Institute wishes to get settled. They are Dominionists who created ID as what they refer to as a "wedge" for inserting biblical creationism into the public schools. That's not some paranoid conspiracy theory, their published documents proclaim it and it all came out at the Dover trail, anyway. Their ultimate goal is to impose a totalitarian theocracy designed by one of their Fellows, the late R. J. Rushdoony, a goal they see as more attainable if they can indoctrinate public school children with their militant Calvinist theology.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That is more or less correct, except for the "point" that the Discovery Institute wishes to get settled. They are Dominionists who created ID as what they refer to as a "wedge" for inserting biblical creationism into the public schools. That's not some paranoid conspiracy theory, their published documents proclaim it and it all came out at the Dover trail, anyway. Their ultimate goal is to impose a totalitarian theocracy designed by one of their Fellows, the late R. J. Rushdoony, a goal they see as more attainable if they can indoctrinate public school children with their militant Calvinist theology.

Are you saying they tried to hide that ultimate goal? Or was it there all along, and they really want to get agreement (settled) on the issue so they can move on and get it into the schools again.

Just a random comment, but it still amazes me haw people can't seem to see what happened once God was removed from the schools....baffling.

As to the totalitarian thing, it's total evolution now, so how is that OK and not the other way around? Believe it or not, evolution is just as ridiculous to some of us as God is to others. All the more reason to get together, and settle the issue.

But in the end, it won't be settled till the end.

Edit: Just read the following and am not familiar with them/that so, could easily change some of my post, but just some.

Their ultimate goal is to impose a totalitarian theocracy designed by one of their Fellows, the late R. J. Rushdoony, a goal they see as more attainable if they can indoctrinate public school children with their militant Calvinist theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just a random comment, but it still amazes me haw people can't seem to see what happened once God was removed from the schools....baffling.

But ... but ... didn't they replace Him with good education: like s_x education, where everyone gets a condom and a cucumber; quieting reflex and success imagery; progressive relaxation (hypnosis); and evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

Are you saying they tried to hide that ultimate goal? Or was it there all along, and they really want to get agreement (settled) on the issue so they can move on and get it into the schools again.

They've never tried to hide anything--it's all in their published materials.

Just a random comment, but it still amazes me haw people can't seem to see what happened once God was removed from the schools....baffling.

God was never removed from the schools. Enforced Protestant Fundamentalist prayer and Bible study were removed from the schools and both the schools and the country as a whole are the better for it.

As to the totalitarian thing, it's total evolution now, so how is that OK and not the other way around? Believe it or not, evolution is just as ridiculous to some of us as God is to others. All the more reason to get together, and settle the issue.

You think that teaching evolution as science in the public schools is an equivalent infringement of our liberties as a totalitarian dictatorship would be?

 

[Larniavc]

Tell that to those who committed suicide playing D&D.

Nobody committed suicide playing D&D.