1221 replies to this topic

[platypus]

As mentioned many times, ID=cre(a)ti(o)nism and definetely not science. There's no evidence for ID. ID aka. cre(a)ti(o)nism have achieved nothing in the past 150 years (~since Darwin). No new scientific knowledge has been gained/created during all that time. There are no applications/technologies whatsoever relying on ID/cre(a)ti(o)nism, while technologies relying on evolutionary theory have a market in the hundreds of billions each year. The reason for this is clear: ID/cre(a)ti(o)nism does not produce science nor applications since it's patently false.

Cretinists should take heed from the Great Demigod Richard Feynman:

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO: They may not jump to a conclusion about who the designer is, but they do specify which trait - human eyeball for instance - is caused by a designer. This is where I have most trouble with. Each such explanation is extremely unlikely, given that evolution is a constant force, and intelligent beings are scarce.

Wrong. Why is there something rather than nothing is the most basic question of all. Another basic question is the material world all there is or is there reality that is not material and if so what is the evidence for it?

So we are talking about everything here. ID is not looking for God but evidence for design and I posted Atheist Ideas earlier. Theists, including Christians sometimes find comfort or support in both views. Believing in Evolution does not make you an atheist. Being an atheist is a philosophical faith position.

We can talk of the whole of Evolution or part. So, why should that bother anyone? The same can be said for ID. Do you deny there is design evident in both the whole or the part?

So you think the following explanation for intelligence is better?(how I summarize your view):
an intelligent designer (which you call an immaterial god) exists a priori, nothing else exists at this time.
then he decides to create the earth, and lets it follow evolutionary rules. consequently, he intervenes to produce intelligent beings.

Several problems exist.
1. Intelligence arose out of nowhere in the beginning, so we don't need an intelligent designer to produce intelligence. But neither did this being come from evolution since he was 'the first'.

2. What is intelligence? You will most likely have to recognize that bacteria are slightly intelligent, since they integrate sensory information to make their decisions. Did this intelligent being intervene at each successive step of 'pseudo'-evolution ?

Wrong, I believe there is evidence for intelligent design whether you are a theist or Atheist, and that both meet the criteria of Science which being a process can study both evolution and ID.. Your belief statement that intelligence just rose out of the ground is...baseless and not testable by science. So you have your own religion here! That is not the point of this thread..

can you elaborate? I don't think that anything is 'supernatural'. if the supernatural would exist, it would simply be because it has been given a wrong name.

So your belief is nothing is supernatural. OK, so what? I would engage you but it would be off topic,

By the way, your formating is hard to use.

[shadowhawk]

Well, to start off you would have to study ID enough to know what it is. You would need to know why evolution and Naturalism are not the same thing. You would need to understand what science is. You would need to value oneness and that in science you are wrong as much as right and truth Nazis are not the friend of science when they try to restrict scientific process. I could go on but I tire.

As far as Naturalism/Evolution, they are not the same and you would have to understand why. As for the curriculum, teach the controversy. Very few things are one sided and you’re not educated unless you understand the views. Be fair.

Sadly Shadow, Damabo has responded above me and now it feels as though we’re ganging up on you. Well nothing new there really.

You didn’t answer the question. We’re not talking about educating university students here we’re talking about educating 15 year olds. Things are very much simplified at this level. In a sense you should be able to easily explain in one paragraph the position taken by ID theorists vs. the position taken by Evolution theorists (Naturalism). What are we teaching here?

And hang on… If Naturalism is the position and Evolution is the process, what’s the position for ID being that it’s also a process? If Naturalism is the battleground then who’s the other side? ID is not a position as you keep banging on and on about… so then it can’t battle against Naturalism.

The topic regards ID and science, does it not?

If you are telling me ID can’t be science because some 15 year old can’t understand it, nonsense. My youngest daughter is 14 and we talk about this kind of thing all the time. Should an Ahiest or Naturalist be able to teach children? This is what usually happens. Naturalism is NOT the position and evolution the process. After all this discussion and we have reached this point?
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE HERE AND DEALING WITH THEORY.

SCIENCE IS A PROCESS NOT A POSITION as I have argued many times. From that we get this? Maybe it is not children who can’t understand but adults.

[shadowhawk]

As mentioned many times, ID=cre(a)ti(o)nism and definetely not science. There's no evidence for ID. ID aka. cre(a)ti(o)nism have achieved nothing in the past 150 years (~since Darwin). No new scientific knowledge has been gained/created during all that time. There are no applications/technologies whatsoever relying on ID/cre(a)ti(o)nism, while technologies relying on evolutionary theory have a market in the hundreds of billions each year. The reason for this is clear: ID/cre(a)ti(o)nism does not produce science nor applications since it's patently false.

Cretinists should take heed from the Great Demigod Richard Feynman:

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Nonsense, ad hominem as usual. .

[Lister]

The topic regards ID and science, does it not?

If you are telling me ID can’t be science because some 15 year old can’t understand it, nonsense. My youngest daughter is 14 and we talk about this kind of thing all the time. Should an Ahiest or Naturalist be able to teach children? This is what usually happens. Naturalism is NOT the position and evolution the process. After all this discussion and we have reached this point?
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE HERE AND DEALING WITH THEORY.

SCIENCE IS A PROCESS NOT A POSITION as I have argued many times. From that we get this? Maybe it is not children who can’t understand but adults.

How on earth did you come to this conclusion from reading what I wrote?

“If you are telling me ID can’t be science because some 15 year old can’t understand it, nonsense.”

I asked you to give me a simple explanation of what we would be teaching kids in their high school science rooms and you come to THAT conclusion? Tell me why I shouldn’t just assume you can’t answer that question and are deliberately spearing off to change the subject. Tell me.

I personally said that I would be fine if society gave ID the room it needs to scientifically study Intelligence and design in nature. Having reached this conclusion I asked YOU if you still supported it being taught in High School science classrooms and you said YES. You said so because you don’t believe in censorship. FINE!

I argue that ID hasn’t grown enough as a field to have content to teach in high school science classrooms. There’s nothing ID can teach students at the high school level. It’s just not far enough along. Unless you can prove that there is a simple set of content that can be taught in high school I’m going to assume you’re just pushing it because you support the “wedge”.

I am asking you an extremely simple question here. EXTEMELY SIMPLE!

What are we going to teach students in high school? Are we going to point at DNA and say “Wow! Looks like it was made by someone huh?” Or are we going to show those 15 year olds a cell, explain to them how complex it is then ask them where it could have come from and go “Ah! Could have been intelligently designed hey?”

It’s not enough Shadow. Stop being so obstinate and answer the question. What are we teaching them!?!?!

[platypus]

As mentioned many times, ID=cre(a)ti(o)nism and definetely not science. There's no evidence for ID. ID aka. cre(a)ti(o)nism have achieved nothing in the past 150 years (~since Darwin). No new scientific knowledge has been gained/created during all that time. There are no applications/technologies whatsoever relying on ID/cre(a)ti(o)nism, while technologies relying on evolutionary theory have a market in the hundreds of billions each year. The reason for this is clear: ID/cre(a)ti(o)nism does not produce science nor applications since it's patently false.

Cretinists should take heed from the Great Demigod Richard Feynman:

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Nonsense, ad hominem as usual. .

Not nonsense but fact. All of it. Cretinism is wrong. Ha ha.

[DAMABO]

Wrong. Why is there something rather than nothing is the most basic question of all.

And your answer to this is 'there must be some immaterial god that existed before it', rendering this nothingness that existed before it into something ( an immaterial god).

Another basic question is the material world all there is or is there reality that is not material and if so what is the evidence for it?

... say how can we provide evidence for 'immateriality'. Do you even have a definition of immateriality?

Your belief statement that intelligence just rose out of the ground is...baseless and not testable by science. So you have your own religion here! That is not the point of this thread..

Nono, you're the one saying that some intelligence existed a priori, and that only this intelligence can create other intelligences. I, on the other hand, state that intelligence arose gradually (by means of evolution), and that intelligence itself is a gradual concept.
Really, I think it is quite funny that you suppose this intelligence existed before everything (literally coming out of nothing) and then claim that I suppose intelligence comes out of nothing... Furthermore, this argument is circular, since you claim that, in order for intelligence to exist, there necessarily must be some intelligence. Then where did this intelligence come from?

So your belief is nothing is supernatural. OK, so what? I would engage you but it would be off topic,

So what? you tell me, why do you bring up naturalism? elaborate what you say with the whole 'naturalism clash' thing you have brought up - of which you consequently say it's off topic.

Edited by DAMABO, 16 November 2012 - 06:04 PM.

[DAMABO]

As mentioned many times, ID=cre(a)ti(o)nism and definetely not science. There's no evidence for ID. ID aka. cre(a)ti(o)nism have achieved nothing in the past 150 years (~since Darwin). No new scientific knowledge has been gained/created during all that time. There are no applications/technologies whatsoever relying on ID/cre(a)ti(o)nism, while technologies relying on evolutionary theory have a market in the hundreds of billions each year. The reason for this is clear: ID/cre(a)ti(o)nism does not produce science nor applications since it's patently false.

Cretinists should take heed from the Great Demigod Richard Feynman:

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Nonsense, ad hominem as usual. .

Not nonsense but fact. All of it. Cretinism is wrong. Ha ha.

Yes, it seems shadowhawk uses his favorite 'ad hominem' phrase again - without minding the actual definition of the word. Another one of his favorites is 'off topic', even if he brings up the topic himself.

[Lister]

Damabo, for now let’s try and assume that the source of intelligence is not on the table. For now let’s start with whether the study of complex natural patterns under the assumption of design can be considered Science and whether that Science is advanced enough to be taught in College and even High School alongside Evolutionary Theory.

Arguing about whether God exists or not or even arguing about whether ID and creationism is the same thing really just drags the discussion into the pit of “You’re crazy!... No you’re crazy!” which isn’t productive.

If you can’t do that then please just call Shadow crazy, get it out of your system and then depart from the conversation.

I and hopefully others still hold enough patience to try and break Intelligent Design down until it’s irreducibly complex and figure out if there’s any intelligence in its design (as a process of course).

[maxwatt]

"Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life design on this planet."

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO IN QUOTES

platypus: As mentioned many times, ID=cre(a)ti(o)nism and definetely not science. There's no evidence for ID. ID aka. cre(a)ti(o)nism have achieved nothing in the past 150 years (~since Darwin). No new scientific knowledge has been gained/created during all that time. There are no applications/technologies whatsoever relying on ID/cre(a)ti(o)nism, while technologies relying on evolutionary theory have a market in the hundreds of billions each year. The reason for this is clear: ID/cre(a)ti(o)nism does not produce science nor applications since it's patently false.

1.ID is not Creationalism, a point repeatedly made by ID proponents. Calling them creationalists (not a bad word in my view) is done so a strawman can be created and falsely attacked.

2.Creationalism is not science any more than Naturalism. Platypus deliberately confuses the two so he can make the statements about creationalism he does and by association attack ID.

3. He males a number of false claims:
a. “There is no Evidence. Is he talking about creation or ID?

b. Creationism (notice he did not say ID) .has no new evidence. Wrong. I will present as much evidence here as he gave. 0

c. He claims new technologies based on Evolution. Before I respond, define what is being talked about with “Evolution.” Plus technology implies guiding intelligence, does it not?

4. Ad Hominem name calling,“Cretinists,” “Cretinism,” You made a point out of this childishness over and again.

platypus:
Cretinists should take heed from the Great Demigod Richard Feynman:

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Nonsense, ad hominem as usual. .
Not nonsense but fact. All of it. Cretinism is wrong. Ha ha.

1. Nature cannot be fooled? The fact is Evolutionists who are Scientists have been hoaxed and fooled many times. If it wasn’t off topic I could give you many embarrassing examples.

2. Good, using experiment show me how life begins. How did information advance in the DNA?

DAMABO :Yes, it seems shadowhawk uses his favorite 'ad hominem' phrase again - without minding the actual definition of the word. Another one of his favorites is 'off topic', even if he brings up the topic himself

I guess I should not expect you be fair about name calling and Ad Hominem attacks. OK

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

Am I wrong? Do I need to spell out why this is mostly a baseless attack on ID?. It is off topic if this does offend you.

[shadowhawk]

Wrong. Why is there something rather than nothing is the most basic question of all.

And your answer to this is 'there must be some immaterial god that existed before it', rendering this nothingness that existed before it into something ( an immaterial god).

Another basic question is the material world all there is or is there reality that is not material and if so what is the evidence for it?

... say how can we provide evidence for 'immateriality'. Do you even have a definition of immateriality?

Your belief statement that intelligence just rose out of the ground is...baseless and not testable by science. So you have your own religion here! That is not the point of this thread..

Nono, you're the one saying that some intelligence existed a priori, and that only this intelligence can create other intelligences. I, on the other hand, state that intelligence arose gradually (by means of evolution), and that intelligence itself is a gradual concept.
Really, I think it is quite funny that you suppose this intelligence existed before everything (literally coming out of nothing) and then claim that I suppose intelligence comes out of nothing... Furthermore, this argument is circular, since you claim that, in order for intelligence to exist, there necessarily must be some intelligence. Then where did this intelligence come from?

So your belief is nothing is supernatural. OK, so what? I would engage you but it would be off topic,

So what? you tell me, why do you bring up naturalism? elaborate what you say with the whole 'naturalism clash' thing you have brought up - of which you consequently say it's off topic.

A classic example of creating straw men, one after another. I am not going to engage this. All you will do is run off on another 80 rabbit trails. I am not going to try and catch you.

[shadowhawk]

The topic regards ID and science, does it not?

If you are telling me ID can’t be science because some 15 year old can’t understand it, nonsense. My youngest daughter is 14 and we talk about this kind of thing all the time. Should an Ahiest or Naturalist be able to teach children? This is what usually happens. Naturalism is NOT the position and evolution the process. After all this discussion and we have reached this point?
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE HERE AND DEALING WITH THEORY.

SCIENCE IS A PROCESS NOT A POSITION as I have argued many times. From that we get this? Maybe it is not children who can’t understand but adults.

How on earth did you come to this conclusion from reading what I wrote?

“If you are telling me ID can’t be science because some 15 year old can’t understand it, nonsense.”

I asked you to give me a simple explanation of what we would be teaching kids in their high school science rooms and you come to THAT conclusion? Tell me why I shouldn’t just assume you can’t answer that question and are deliberately spearing off to change the subject. Tell me.

I personally said that I would be fine if society gave ID the room it needs to scientifically study Intelligence and design in nature. Having reached this conclusion I asked YOU if you still supported it being taught in High School science classrooms and you said YES. You said so because you don’t believe in censorship. FINE!

I argue that ID hasn’t grown enough as a field to have content to teach in high school science classrooms. There’s nothing ID can teach students at the high school level. It’s just not far enough along. Unless you can prove that there is a simple set of content that can be taught in high school I’m going to assume you’re just pushing it because you support the “wedge”.

I am asking you an extremely simple question here. EXTEMELY SIMPLE!

What are we going to teach students in high school? Are we going to point at DNA and say “Wow! Looks like it was made by someone huh?” Or are we going to show those 15 year olds a cell, explain to them how complex it is then ask them where it could have come from and go “Ah! Could have been intelligently designed hey?”

It’s not enough Shadow. Stop being so obstinate and answer the question. What are we teaching them!?!?!

A few Intelligent Design School curriculum.

http://www.arn.org/d...f/guidebook.htm

http://www.amazon.co...m/dp/096421041X

http://www.faithande...s/curricula.php

I support teaching ID because I am a libertarian and public schools should represent everyone as much as possible. I am not afraid of ideas. There are many “wedges.”

As for DNA I am not afraid of questions. I am afraid of censorship. You asked a question about where Design came from? Bad!!! Only ask the PC questions and give the PC answers. No Jews allowed. If ID is shown to have support, then who are we to control discussion? So...

[shadowhawk]

FALSE JUNK DNA PREDICTIONS BY EVOLUTIONISTS

http://winteryknight...-by-darwinists/

[Lister]

Interesting documents...

As a result of such contradictions, most contemporary philosophers of science have come to regard the question "what distinguishes science from non-science" as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is "scientific" according to some abstract definition, but whether a theory is true or warranted by the evidence. As Laudan puts it, "If we could stand up on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science'. . . they do only emotive work for us." 38 Martin Eger offers this summary: "Demarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don't hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that's a different world."

Hmm...

The Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, 92 based on the Lemon test. 93 This test, which was first enunciated by the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 94 consists of three prongs:

• The government's action must not promote a particular religion or religious view;
• The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
• The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion. 95

Hmmmmm...

So it’s not religion as defined by the courts. It’s Science as defined by Philosophers of Science. Why do I still get the feeling I’m missing something here...?

Avoiding Philosophical or Social based arguments is tough. As far as ID goes I really have a challenge (as do many people in my position I imagine) arguing against it from a Scientific standpoint. There are a few things that concern me though:

- It appears to be just a conclusion and not a theory or process. The study of irreducibly complex system takes place all across science. The difference here is instead of finding what looks like design and doing nothing; we conclude that an intelligent designer is behind the work. In the end it’s just an additional step is it not?

- It appears to be a dead end. When something is broken down to a point where we at the present cannot break it down further ID defines that as Intelligently Designed rather than looking for ways to break it down further; until the entire process can be explained. While this may be verging on a Philosophical argument it feels as though it’s unscientific to support Science that’s anti-progress.

[DAMABO]

ok SH, you have made clear that once you don't have an answer, you will resort to saying 'ad hominem', 'straw man' and 'off topic'.
You clearly do believe in an immaterial god that was there at all times of existence. and you do not believe that intelligence can 'come out of nothing'. those are contradictory claims.
You also clearly believe there is a thing called immateriality, a notion which is supported by zero evidence.
Tell me, where am I putting words in your mouth that you didn't use?

[shadowhawk]

ok SH, you have made clear that once you don't have an answer, you will resort to saying 'ad hominem', 'straw man' and 'off topic'.
You clearly do believe in an immaterial god that was there at all times of existence. and you do not believe that intelligence can 'come out of nothing'. those are contradictory claims.
You also clearly believe there is a thing called immateriality, a notion which is supported by zero evidence.
Tell me, where am I putting words in your mouth that you didn't use?

If logic is ad hominem, straw man, or off topic and it continues to be oracticed by some over and over, then whose fault is that? ,I am sorry that I also have to say it over an d over again, the issue is not about God. Why do you keep talking about God? You are really stuck on it.


http://www.amazon.co...53442060&sr=1-1


"Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" [Hardcover]
Thomas Nagel (Author)

A great new book I am now reading by an atheist which fits the issue being discussed. Here is Amazon’s description. There is more than materialism.

“The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.

Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history, either. An adequate conception of nature would have to explain the appearance in the universe of materially irreducible conscious minds, as such. “ There is more than this but next time

[shadowhawk]

Interesting documents...

As a result of such contradictions, most contemporary philosophers of science have come to regard the question "what distinguishes science from non-science" as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is "scientific" according to some abstract definition, but whether a theory is true or warranted by the evidence. As Laudan puts it, "If we could stand up on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science'. . . they do only emotive work for us." 38 Martin Eger offers this summary: "Demarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don't hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that's a different world."

Hmm...

The Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, 92 based on the Lemon test. 93 This test, which was first enunciated by the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 94 consists of three prongs:

• The government's action must not promote a particular religion or religious view;
  
• The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
  
• The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion. 95

Hmmmmm...

So it’s not religion as defined by the courts. It’s Science as defined by Philosophers of Science. Why do I still get the feeling I’m missing something here...?

Avoiding Philosophical or Social based arguments is tough. As far as ID goes I really have a challenge (as do many people in my position I imagine) arguing against it from a Scientific standpoint. There are a few things that concern me though:

- It appears to be just a conclusion and not a theory or process. The study of irreducibly complex system takes place all across science. The difference here is instead of finding what looks like design and doing nothing; we conclude that an intelligent designer is behind the work. In the end it’s just an additional step is it not?

- It appears to be a dead end. When something is broken down to a point where we at the present cannot break it down further ID defines that as Intelligently Designed rather than looking for ways to break it down further; until the entire process can be explained. While this may be verging on a Philosophical argument it feels as though it’s unscientific to support Science that’s anti-progress.

This is false and completely misses the point of science and why we create theories. We want to know why?

[Lister]

Yes we do want to know why.

I feel that Intelligent Design is a substitute answer for an extremely complex unknown. If we cannot currently break it down further, assuming that its complex design (which appears similar to known created designs) was the result of intelligent design is false.

I understand why ID cannot be science Shadow and you do not. But sadly I don’t know if I can explain it well enough to really reach that critical point where we disagree…

Let me try a metaphor (ask I’m usually pretty good at them):

Life is a Road. As we travel down that road we find paths leading off in many directions. Science is about furthering our understanding of that road. It is what we see with our eyes, hear with our ears, smell with our nose, and what we’re able to grasp with our mind. This road is never ending.

When we follow the paths that Intelligent Design takes I at least see it taking a similar path to that taken by many other scientific theories. The critical problem for me is the amount of unknowns it passes along the way. If I have to be fair I have to say that Evolution at times follows the same path and therefore must be in the same boat.

The deeper you theorize without physical evidence the more fuzzy things get. ID takes a very long very unclear path. Though it follows the same path as any science it is too far beyond what is known. It takes well understood concepts and applies it to extremely distant and very weakly understood situations.

We don’t understand DNA. We don’t understand the cell. We don’t understand the beginning of the universe as well as most of the things ID targets. They may all look Intelligently Designed but making this assumption is no different than assuming the Stars are Gods.

ID is too far into the Fog to be called Science; at least for me. As parts of Evolution fail in the same way I have to conclude that it is no better. Therefore if we’re going to exclude ID we should also exclude unproven elements of Evolution. Take a step back to take a step forward so to say.

[shadowhawk]

Lister: Yes we do want to know why.

I feel that Intelligent Design is a substitute answer for an extremely complex unknown. If we cannot currently break it down further, assuming that its complex design (which appears similar to known created designs) was the result of intelligent design is false.

I understand why ID cannot be science Shadow and you do not. But sadly I don’t know if I can explain it well enough to really reach that critical point where we disagree…

You do know it is a substitute answer but can’t explain it. OK for what that’s worth.

Let me try a metaphor (ask I’m usually pretty good at them):

Life is a Road. As we travel down that road we find paths leading off in many directions. Science is about furthering our understanding of that road. It is what we see with our eyes, hear with our ears, smell with our nose, and what we’re able to grasp with our mind. This road is never ending.

When we follow the paths that Intelligent Design takes I at least see it taking a similar path to that taken by many other scientific theories. The critical problem for me is the amount of unknowns it passes along the way. If I have to be fair I have to say that Evolution at times follows the same path and therefore must be in the same boat

.

This means what? Must be far to deep to study or understand. Science only studies easily understood things?

The deeper you theorize without physical evidence the more fuzzy things get. ID takes a very long very unclear path. Though it follows the same path as any science it is too far beyond what is known. It takes well understood concepts and applies it to extremely distant and very weakly understood situations.

So what do you know? Do you know what you are saying?

We don’t understand DNA. We don’t understand the cell. We don’t understand the beginning of the universe as well as most of the things ID targets. They may all look Intelligently Designed but making this assumption is no different than assuming the Stars are Gods.

Don’t even try to understand?

ID is too far into the Fog to be called Science; at least for me. As parts of Evolution fail in the same way I have to conclude that it is no better. Therefore if we’re going to exclude ID we should also exclude unproven elements of Evolution. Take a step back to take a step forward so to say

Don’t read the book on evolution in my last post. To deep. By the way is naturalism and materialism not to deep to study?

[Lister]

Nothing is too deep to study but some things are too deep to recognize as truths.

Now you probably want a definition of what “truths” is (silly tactic really); my meaning of truths is something worthy of recognition beyond speculation. While I can’t prove that I’m sitting in front of this computer 100% it’s still a truth to me. Now you can pull and push that all you want but you’ll be doing it alone.

What’s the difference between Deep and Shallow in Science? I would say that the further something is away from proven the deeper it is. Is that not reasonable?

Studies using ID is too far away from a “truth” to be recognized in the fashion you feel it should be. If you feel that these studies lack of recognition is in some way censorship I don’t know what to say. The kind of Censorship in “Excluded” is not the same thing. I’m not against you on that issue; I think it’s just as wrong as you do. If you continue to bring it up I’ll assume you’re just desperate and attempting to derail the conversation.

I’ve read many of your documents and watched many of your videos. Much of these materials are dozens of arguments bring up the same things over and over again. Most of it is just defense of ID as a scientific Theory. It all lacks substance!

You yell and scream about how ID is not a position but a process. This then allows it to exist without providing any reason for its existence? It doesn’t have to have been used to find anything solid? When pressed you cite things like DNA and the complexity of the Cell but these are just things we don’t understand! You haven’t explained anything! You’ve just jumped to a conclusion!

This whole position/process thing has me wondering if I can call ID a “Field of Study” or whether I can ask for content…

ID is NOTHING Shadow. It has done NOTHING. It deserves only enough light for it to continue to exist as a process for other science in other fields. It doesn’t deserve recognition. Your Libertarian views are not enough to legitimize it. Do you understand? If Evolution/Naturalism/Materialism is in the same boat then it should be treated the same.

It shouldn’t be censored unless it’s promoting lies. Proclaiming that DNA was intelligently designed as a truth is a lie. You THINK it was Intelligently Designed and your proof is nowhere near enough.

[shadowhawk]

LISTER: Nothing is too deep to study but some things are too deep to recognize as truths.

Now you probably want a definition of what “truths” is (silly tactic really); my meaning of truths is something worthy of recognition beyond speculation. While I can’t prove that I’m sitting in front of this computer 100% it’s still a truth to me. Now you can pull and push that all you want but you’ll be doing it alone.

What’s the difference between Deep and Shallow in Science? I would say that the further something is away from proven the deeper it is. Is that not reasonable?

It is science which studies the unknown all the time. Science itself is an un proven assumption. It Itself, is unproven as the only way to truth, is limited in what it can study and it’s definition in fought over all the time. Given your statements above there could be no true science.

Studies using ID is too far away from a “truth” to be recognized in the fashion you feel it should be. If you feel that these studies lack of recognition is in some way censorship I don’t know what to say. The kind of Censorship in “Excluded” is not the same thing. I’m not against you on that issue; I think it’s just as wrong as you do. If you continue to bring it up I’ll assume you’re just desperate and attempting to derail the conversation.

Assume all you want, that is what is getting you into trouble. The topic is whether ID is in or out when it comes to Science. You started the discussion. I am not arguing wether it is true or not, I am arguing that it is a worthy subject for scientific study.. I say yes t should be in..

I’ve read many of your documents and watched many of your videos. Much of these materials are dozens of arguments bring up the same things over and over again. Most of it is just defense of ID as a scientific Theory. It all lacks substance!

ID is a scientific theory which is in the midst of its study. You don’t identify what substance it lacks and this is nothing more than an empty pronouncement. My evidence are the references to hundreds of books, peer reviews, and the evidence of scientific studies they contain. Be specific, give me some evidence rather than NOTHING..

You yell and scream about how ID is not a position but a process. This then allows it to exist without providing any reason for its existence? It doesn’t have to have been used to find anything solid? When pressed you cite things like DNA and the complexity of the Cell but these are just things we don’t understand! You haven’t explained anything! You’ve just jumped to a conclusion!

This whole position/process thing has me wondering if I can call ID a “Field of Study” or whether I can ask for content…

I have never said, “ID is not a position but a process.” Show me, cite the post! This and what follows is total nonsense and an example of how you claim to have studied the material is suspect. I said over and again, “SCIENCE IS A PROCESS NOT A POSITION.” ID and Evolution are positions. Are they true? We will see. The evidence determines if something is true or not.

ID is NOTHING Shadow. It has done NOTHING. It deserves only enough light for it to continue to exist as a process for other science in other fields. It doesn’t deserve recognition. Your Libertarian views are not enough to legitimize it. Do you understand? If Evolution/Naturalism/Materialism is in the same boat then it should be treated the same.

It shouldn’t be censored unless it’s promoting lies. Proclaiming that DNA was intelligently designed as a truth is a lie. You THINK it was Intelligently Designed and your proof is nowhere near enough.

You produced NOTHING regarding DNA but I did. However, OK. Have a great Thanksgiving.

[Lister]

I’m in Canada. Thanksgiving was a while ago but thanks.

Really the base of my argument remains the same. There are degrees to everything; what is, and what isn’t reasonable. You feel that ID proves itself enough while I and the majority do not.

I don’t expect to find something with a literal signature printed on it from some Intelligent Designer but I do expect to at least have some reasonable, obvious proof. You see that signature whereas I don’t. I’ve always tried my best to be neutral (hence my willingness to dismiss Naturalism) and yet I still can’t see the obvious proof you so easily recognize.

If a magnet sticks to metal we can infer Magnetism; if an apple falls out of a tree with can infer Gravity. While these are overwhelmingly obvious, they all at their base contain a sense of certainty any rational person can recognize. To me this is what ID lacks.

SETI is looking for aliens only because we know we project many things out into space such as radio transmissions so it’s reasonable to assume that if there’s life out there it may have done the same. ID is one step farther away from evident making it in my eyes unreasonable. That doesn’t mean it will always be that way, it just means that it is currently.

Also do you ever think that your opinion might be Bias? You WANT to see an ID signature and so do many ID theorists. It’s not an unreasonable desire. You were raised an Atheist; I’m not surprised at your desire for proof and evidence. You could even say that this style of drive is what pushes Scientific Discovery and I would agree with you on that.

I just don’t think ID is there yet. I certainly don’t think it should be excluded as a topic for study but I don’t think it’s reasonable to teach it in high schools or recognize it as anything other than a very initial theory.

I said this once before to you and you skipped it:

There is one possible situation where I could easily see ID jumping into mainstream: Stargate Universe – this is a perfect scenario. The show itself isn’t my focus but the reason for the ship they’re on is traveling to the edge of the universe. A very ancient society studying the universe discovers a Pattern in the background radiation of the Universe. It’s so significant that they launch ships to the outer edge of the Universe to study it. In this scenario those ships could be the ships of ID theorists.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we found something like this soon Shadow. But we’re not there yet. That’s my point.

[IDoNotWantToDie]

People want to believe in an afterlife because they are afraid of dying. I don't think there is any room on these forums for discussion pertaining to God, it only sets the unlimited lifespan ideal backwards. I think people are so afraid that death is just eternal oblivion that they will create any ole idea, like intelligent design, to keep themselves from that scary fact. People need to wake up from the pro-aging trance. Atheists will never be able to convince theists that there is no God because theists were indoctrinated since childhoodby their parents that when they die they will go somewhere beautiful and they shouldnt worry about death.

Edited by IDoNotWantToDie, 22 November 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[Lister]

People want to believe in an afterlife because they are afraid of dying. I don't think there is any room on these forums for discussion pertaining to God, it only sets the unlimited lifespan ideal backwards. I think people are so afraid that death is just eternal oblivion that they will create any ole idea, like intelligent design, to keep themselves from that scary fact. People need to wake up from the pro-aging trance. Atheists will never be able to convince theists that there is no God because theists were indoctrinated since childhoodby their parents that when they die they will go somewhere beautiful and they shouldnt worry about death.

I would say this topic is a tad too far along for you to be making comments like that. My suggestion; bring those thoughts together and make a new topic. I promise people will respond (on mass probably).

[shadowhawk]

DNA BY CHANCE OR DESIGN?

[Lister]

The sound track on that video is off.

Infinitely Improbable Scenarios do not prove Intelligent Design. Do understand?

However unlikely the source is you’re still jumping to conclusions. It’s amazingly improbable! It’s insanely improbable! But it happened. I wonder why? It’s a shame we don’t know. What proof do you have that this unlikely situation is the result of Intelligent Design other than its low probability?

“It’s Very Unlikely [gap] It’s intelligently Designed” How can you not see that gap?

I’ll give you one scenario: We don’t understand Time completely. There is a very low change that occasionally a section of space will fracture and within that fracture time will move infinitely faster. This happened on earth and within the facture proteins were allowed to fold for over 10^100 trillion years while only 1 year past in normal space. This space wasn’t conductive to life except for the most basic single cell organisms. The fracture exploded and a chunk of the mater within it flew out into the Sea giving birth to life.

You say that Scenario is insane? Why is it any different than Intelligent Design? Is it because some things look similar to what we’ve created? The reason they look so similar is down to us designing based on nature. It’s not that they look like our intelligently created works; it’s that our intelligently designed works look like those natural formations.

And even if all this stuff works out to be more likely for ID it’s still not enough!

Edit: In that scenario you could say that the chances of the fracture forming on earth is insanely low thus it must have been Intelligently Designed. Then we go back to the drawing boards, find proof that the fracture was natural. Sadly part of that source is very improbable and so you claim ID again and it's back to the drawing boards.

Do you not see this pointless cycle? Get over your need for evidence and find God without it. If you cannot find God without scientific proof you're no religious man! And I'm back to calling you an Atheist again. Surprise!

Edited by Lister, 23 November 2012 - 08:38 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Lister: Really the base of my argument remains the same. There are degrees to everything; what is, and what isn’t reasonable. You feel that ID proves itself enough while I and the majority do not.

I don’t expect to find something with a literal signature printed on it from some Intelligent Designer but I do expect to at least have some reasonable, obvious proof. You see that signature whereas I don’t. I’ve always tried my best to be neutral (hence my willingness to dismiss Naturalism) and yet I still can’t see the obvious proof you so easily recognize.

Want a signature? http://www.signatureinthecell.com/

If a magnet sticks to metal we can infer Magnetism; if an apple falls out of a tree with can infer Gravity. While these are overwhelmingly obvious, they all at their base contain a sense of certainty any rational person can recognize. To me this is what ID lacks

.

And what is Magnetism you are so certain about? Tell me what it is? On top of this we are talking about non material intelligence something quite different. That is the topic..Of course intelligence dies not act like magnetism. You do this kind of logical Fallacy quite often. Don’t compare apples to oranges.

SETI is looking for aliens only because we know we project many things out into space such as radio transmissions so it’s reasonable to assume that if there’s life out there it may have done the same. ID is one step farther away from evident making it in my eyes unreasonable. That doesn’t mean it will always be that way, it just means that it is currently.

SETI is looking for signs of intelligence no matter what the source. So is ID.

Also do you ever think that your opinion might be Bias? You WANT to see an ID signature and so do many ID theorists. It’s not an unreasonable desire. You were raised an Atheist; I’m not surprised at your desire for proof and evidence. You could even say that this style of drive is what pushes Scientific Discovery and I would agree with you on that.

I could ask you the same thing. So???

I just don’t think ID is there yet. I certainly don’t think it should be excluded as a topic for study but I don’t think it’s reasonable to teach it in high schools or recognize it as anything other than a very initial theory.

Based on what ever you think as the determiner of what can be taught, is there anything else which should be taught in high school?

There is one possible situation where I could easily see ID jumping into mainstream: Stargate Universe – this is a perfect scenario. The show itself isn’t my focus but the reason for the ship they’re on is traveling to the edge of the universe. A very ancient society studying the universe discovers a Pattern in the background radiation of the Universe. It’s so significant that they launch ships to the outer edge of the Universe to study it. In this scenario those ships could be the ships of ID theorists.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we found something like this soon Shadow. But we’re not there yet

Science Fiction, makes it, but ID is out!

[shadowhawk]

The sound tract is on. Must be a problem with your sound card..

Infinitely Improbable Scenarios do not prove Intelligent Design. Do understand?

ID is not a, “infinitely Improbable Scenarios.” Are you just making this up? No I don’t understand how you came to this conclusion.

Want to talk about improbable and what is unlikely, listen to the video your computer can’t hear. It works just fine. Show me something comparable to the you Tube.
http://www.longecity...210#entry547779

ID is looking for a cause that explains life. Where does the information in the DNA code come from? You don’t want to allow this question to be explained only one way. You haven’t shown me how information occurs and increases.

Lister: I’ll give you one scenario: We don’t understand Time completely. There is a very low change that occasionally a section of space will fracture and within that fracture time will move infinitely faster. This happened on earth and within the facture proteins were allowed to fold for over 10^100 trillion years while only 1 year past in normal space. This space wasn’t conductive to life except for the most basic single cell organisms. The fracture exploded and a chunk of the mater within it flew out into the Sea giving birth to life.

You say that Scenario is insane? Why is it any different than Intelligent Design? Is it because some things look similar to what we’ve created? The reason they look so similar is down to us designing based on nature. It’s not that they look like our intelligently created works; it’s that our intelligently designed works look like those natural formations.

And even if all this stuff works out to be more likely for ID it’s still not enough!

Now we are treating made up fantasy as if it is science. Dream on. Suppose the fracture shows the same marks of intelligence as an arrowhead which is created by many fractures. I have thousands of them intelligently made by fractures. According to you, don’t ask questions of design because it offends you to talk about intelligence. What you say below is a perfect example.

Edit: In that scenario you could say that the chances of the fracture forming on earth is insanely low thus it must have been Intelligently Designed. Then we go back to the drawing boards, find proof that the fracture was natural. Sadly part of that source is very improbable and so you claim ID again and it's back to the drawing boards.

Do you not see this pointless cycle? Get over your need for evidence and find God without it. If you cannot find God without scientific proof you're no religious man! And I'm back to calling you an Atheist again. Surprise!

I think it is your reasoning which is so flawed that it destroys science and God.

[shadowhawk]

ID and proof of God by information theory. Here is a source you won't want to miss. Some ID proponents believe in God.

http://www.cosmicfin...ove-god-exists/