Debunking the Intelligent Design argument?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#31

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:32 am

Byblos wrote:
No, ID contradicts science. And not in the way you are implying, it is not that intelligent design is wrong. Intelligent design assumes a designer first and then looks for evidence to support this assumption.

Its a hypothesis not based on observations but based on beliefs.


And how has the evolutionary science proven the origin of the universe? I don't mean how it evolved but rather how it came to be. I think the answer is self-evident as evolution does not in any way offer a testable observation but a mere theory. And what makes that theory any better than ID?
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#32

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:45 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:BGood-you're saying we're supposed to know everything before coming to conclusions-but how are we supposed to know everything first?
No, I am sure I was being clear. You can't use a gap in knowledge to further a claim.
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:LOL You are like a man who falls into a hole, and finding he can't get out, goes and gets a ladder.
I suppose you'd just make a nice little home for yourself then?
I choose to climb out of the hole and into the light.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6025
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 142 times

#33

Post by Byblos » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:55 am

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Byblos wrote:

No, ID contradicts science. And not in the way you are implying, it is not that intelligent design is wrong. Intelligent design assumes a designer first and then looks for evidence to support this assumption.

Its a hypothesis not based on observations but based on beliefs.


And how has the evolutionary science proven the origin of the universe? I don't mean how it evolved but rather how it came to be. I think the answer is self-evident as evolution does not in any way offer a testable observation but a mere theory. And what makes that theory any better than ID?

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.



That's what I said so where does ID contradict science? if we are to rely on your statement that a hypothesis must be based on observation and not belief, I have news for you, half the science you and I believe in would have to be thrown out the window as all scientists would be sitting and waiting to observe before they can hypothesize. Sorry pal, but your statement is self-contradictory.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#34

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:20 pm

Byblos wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Byblos wrote:

No, ID contradicts science. And not in the way you are implying, it is not that intelligent design is wrong. Intelligent design assumes a designer first and then looks for evidence to support this assumption.

Its a hypothesis not based on observations but based on beliefs.


And how has the evolutionary science proven the origin of the universe? I don't mean how it evolved but rather how it came to be. I think the answer is self-evident as evolution does not in any way offer a testable observation but a mere theory. And what makes that theory any better than ID?

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.


That's what I said so where does ID contradict science? if we are to rely on your statement that a hypothesis must be based on observation and not belief, I have news for you, half the science you and I believe in would have to be thrown out the window as all scientists would be sitting and waiting to observe before they can hypothesize. Sorry pal, but your statement is self-contradictory.
Sorry
Ok, I made a mistatement. ID does not contradict science, it is not science is what I meant to say.

Hypotheses are built on conclusions of previous studies as well. As the ideas are honed the original concept that each new hypothesis is built on is continually being tested.

The framework of evolution came from the original observation that animals have some sort of relation to each other.

So tell me how ID helps a scientist in indonesia determine the likelyhood of an H5N1 virus to aquire the ability for human to human transmission?

If there is no validity to evolution what is one to make of the distribution of organisms around the world? Why kangaroos only in Australia?
And why do embryo's of human babies have gills? These are the more obvious examples. But the paradigm has bolstered much thought and many hypotheses which have lead to many discoveries.

When it comes to human medicine why should I conduct animal experiments with rats or chimps? Why not use budgies, or kangaroos, or even armadillos?

So until there is some sort of framework which represents ID, I will reitterate that altho ID is a logical and possible condition of reality, it cannot be equated with science as a way of discovering the world.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Debunking Intelligent Design

#35

Post by Jbuza » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:53 pm

Byblos wrote:
JBuza wrote:OF course their is the whole feel good can't we all be right creation/evolution mix.

You say it as if it were a compromise, yet it is the simplest, most plausible answer we have. When employing scientific rules, it is said that one should always look for the simplest and most obvious answers as in most cases they tend to be correct. Well there it is.
God having set the natural processes in order doesn't make them less scientific. Science works the same on a evolved world as it does on the one God created.
Exactly. But somehow that contradicts your earlier statement as a secondary, feel-good choice.
I suppose that is true, I should have been more clear I guess. Evolution is such a broad term and fantastic theory that just saying evolution is quite nebulous and inadequate.

The Bible says that Jesus is the Word and was at the creation with God, and that their is nothing made that wasn't made by him. John's Gospel Introduction. Since I am convinced that God exists and the Bible is true I find a great deal of what evolution preaches to be false.

I do agree with your exception to my argument to the extent that certian natural processes, that Darwin used and are the underpinings of todays mix of evolution, are not at odds with creation.

Sorry to not be clear, I only wrote half my thought I guess.

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#36

Post by Jbuza » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:02 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: No, ID contradicts science. And not in the way you are implying, it is not that intelligent design is wrong. Intelligent design assumes a designer first and then looks for evidence to support this assumption.

Its a hypothesis not based on observations but based on beliefs.
That is the definition of hypothesis, and is just how Darwin came to the conclusions of EVolution. He turned from Christianity, and the beginings of evolution were how he explained life once he turned away from God. IT in fact is the very workings of. How can I explain life presupposing no God.

Hypothesis are not sapposed to be based on observations, at all. One is supposed to form the hypothesis before observing for evidence that supports the conclusion.

Bgood, do you think that we beleive in the abscense of observations? The things I have observed in my life are what have convinced me to beleive that that particular explanation of things is most likely, and now I know within myself that these things are so. IT is a anti-reason and anti-logic to say that the observations do not support the conclusion.

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Debunking Intelligent Design

#37

Post by Jbuza » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:10 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: The theory of evolution has strong explanative power to reconcile many observations made. It continues to help biochemists and geneticists make sence of new discoveries and applications. (The theory thus has been exhaustively tested.) It may be a scientific theory but you are using the word theory in the colloquial manor.
I agree it does have explanative power, and I would agree that it was a scientific theory as proposed by Darwin. IT has been badly bastardized by a group of pseudo scientists that presuppose it as a LAW and have concocted fanciful and complex narrative to explain everything that science has discovered since.

The point that you skip or disagree with is that these same observations are reconciled and explained by creation. I write again, Science would work the same on an evolved world as it does on the one God created. Christian Geneticists and Biochemists are also able to apply science in a wonderful helpful way. God and his order are the very building blocks of the logic, reason, and science that you so love.

Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#38

Post by Jbuza » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:51 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Hypotheses are built on conclusions of previous studies as well. As the ideas are honed the original concept that each new hypothesis is built on is continually being tested.
Hypothesis are conclusions that one makes and tests to see if observations can be explained by that hypothesis, they are provisional conjectures to guide investigation. Established facts should guide hypothesizing, but facts are difficult to prove. Clearly much of the scientific community thinks evolution is a fact or they shouldn't be using it in creating further hypothesis.
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
The framework of evolution came from the original observation that animals have some sort of relation to each other.
So tell me how ID helps a scientist in indonesia determine the likelyhood of an virus to aquire the ability for human to human transmission?
It is fairly simple, if you take a ride on certain roads you can see that some houses are vary, vary similar, and that is because they have the same builder. The framework for my Theory of Creation is supported by the visible similarities in anatomical structures and is evidenced by observations that animals seem to have some sort of relation to each other.
Now based on my hypothesis that God created, as testified by one of the oldest books in existence, I could surmise given this similarity that there is a chance that disease could be communicated from one mammal to another. From the apparent ability of species to adapt, including viruses there is a probability based on the closeness of similarity in structures that a H5N1could aquire the ability for human to human transmission?
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

If there is no validity to evolution what is one to make of the distribution of organisms around the world? Why kangaroos only in Australia?
And why do embryo's of human babies have gills? These are the more obvious examples. But the paradigm has bolstered much thought and many hypotheses which have lead to many discoveries.

When it comes to human medicine why should I conduct animal experiments with rats or chimps? Why not use budgies, or kangaroos, or even armadillos?
AS a creationist I am not surprised that organisms are distributed around the world, and I am not surprised to find them in the environments that can support them, I expect these things, these observations explain creation. What is this anyway Science doesn't stop working because one subscribes to a different Theory. One mustn't stick there head in the sand and stop investigating and reasoning and expanding knowledge simply because they believe creation to be true. I don't believe that human embryos have gills, where did this come from? Guess what they won't survive underwater. Are you referring to convolutions in the cephalic end of the fetus that become the head?

Reason says that when checking the efficacy of treatments it would be best to test on the most similar and readily available subjects.
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
So until there is some sort of framework which represents ID, I will reitterate that altho ID is a logical and possible condition of reality, it cannot be equated with science as a way of discovering the world.
What? Scientific investigation, logic, and reason are supposed to be the frameworks, not the theory. IT is this absurd twistage that has allowed a once respectable theory to grow into a laughable mess that still doesn't explain hard questions that my more simple theory answers perfectly for.

User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#39

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:44 pm

No, I am sure I was being clear. You can't use a gap in knowledge to further a claim.
Evidence for ID isn't the lack of evidence for ID...it is the fact that irreducibly complex machines are in principle unevolvable, for one thing...
Any many cases, claiming that ID is argues using gaps in knowledge...are using circular reasoning.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6025
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 142 times

#40

Post by Byblos » Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:23 am

Woof! Thank you JBuza.

Yesterday I was contemplating answering back but I was just too tired and went home. This morning I came in nice and ready for a rebuttal and to my surprise you had beaten me to it.

Ditto everything JBuza said. Excellent post.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#41

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:13 am

Jbuza wrote: Hypothesis are conclusions that one makes and tests to see if observations can be explained by that hypothesis, they are provisional conjectures to guide investigation. Established facts should guide hypothesizing, but facts are difficult to prove. Clearly much of the scientific community thinks evolution is a fact or they shouldn't be using it in creating further hypothesis.
Scientific discoveries used to be reffered to as Laws, such as Newtons law of gravity.
After Einstein refined Newtons mechanics scientific findings no matter how robust were since then referred to as theories.
Evolution has withstood rigorous tests and continues to do so. To base a hypothesis on it is not a problem.
It is fairly simple, if you take a ride on certain roads you can see that some houses are vary, vary similar, and that is because they have the same builder. The framework for my Theory of Creation is supported by the visible similarities in anatomical structures and is evidenced by observations that animals seem to have some sort of relation to each other.
Now based on my hypothesis that God created, as testified by one of the oldest books in existence, I could surmise given this similarity that there is a chance that disease could be communicated from one mammal to another. From the apparent ability of species to adapt, including viruses there is a probability based on the closeness of similarity in structures that a H5N1could aquire the ability for human to human transmission?
Well lets take a close look. We have two similar environments. But in one we have new world monkeys, cougars and two toed sloths. In the other we have old world monkeys, gorillas and pythons. Why two completely different sets of animals?

Similarity does not equate to same builder.
You are assuming a maker, how is this scientific?
Now your making a hypothesis on an assumption not a scientific basis.

Next are you assuming that H5N1's goal is to spread sickness and death? That there is something driving it to improve its disease delivering capabilities?

What do you mean by animal adaptibility?
Why are some animals similar and others not?
Lets use for example a lungfish, tuna, and panfish.
What is this anyway Science doesn't stop working because one subscribes to a different Theory.
Sure it does if you allow the definition of theory to degrade to the point of, beleifs and ideas. You seem to be under the impression that theories change all the time. An idea cannot be termed a theory until it has passed numerous tests.
One mustn't stick there head in the sand and stop investigating and reasoning and expanding knowledge simply because they believe creation to be true. I don't believe that human embryos have gills, where did this come from? Guess what they won't survive underwater. Are you referring to convolutions in the cephalic end of the fetus that become the head?
The ridges in a human embryo are analagous to the gills in an amphibian. I.E. they become gills in other creatures. No they never develop into functioning gills, and no a fetus does not breathe. So take your head out of the sand and continue investigating.

But you have all the answers already with your simpler theory. Why continue the investigation?
Reason says that when checking the efficacy of treatments it would be best to test on the most similar and readily available subjects.

What? Scientific investigation, logic, and reason are supposed to be the frameworks, not the theory. IT is this absurd twistage that has allowed a once respectable theory to grow into a laughable mess that still doesn't explain hard questions that my more simple theory answers perfectly for.
You're clearly not a scientist. I am only saying that ID is not a science. Yet you insist on defending ID.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#42

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:29 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
No, I am sure I was being clear. You can't use a gap in knowledge to further a claim.
Evidence for ID isn't the lack of evidence for ID...it is the fact that irreducibly complex machines are in principle unevolvable, for one thing...
But you haven't shown anything to be irreducibly complex. And neither have you proven that it is a fact that it is unevolveable.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6025
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 142 times

#43

Post by Byblos » Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:24 am

BGood wrote:You're clearly not a scientist. I am only saying that ID is not a science. Yet you insist on defending ID.


You know this reminds of the story of the two doctors (I think they are Australian) who discovered (some time in the mid 80's) that ulcers are caused by bacteria and not stress.

They were the laughing stock of the medical and scientific community and were lableled as crackpots and non-scientists (sounds familiar?).

Yesterday I read on Yahoo they were awarded the Nobel prize in medicine for their discoveries.

ID is a proposed science that is still in its infancy (as Kurieu stated many times). Whether or not you believe in it is irrelevant. But you cannot outright dismiss it if you call yourself a scientist. It is an alternative theory to evolution that is gaining more and more support even within the scientific community.

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#44

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:27 am

Byblos wrote:
BGood wrote:You're clearly not a scientist. I am only saying that ID is not a science. Yet you insist on defending ID.


You know this reminds of the story of the two doctors (I think they are Australian) who discovered (some time in the mid 80's) that ulcers are caused by bacteria and not stress.

They were the laughing stock of the medical and scientific community and were lableled as crackpots and non-scientists (sounds familiar?).

Yesterday I read on Yahoo they were awarded the Nobel prize in medicine for their discoveries.

ID is a proposed science that is still in its infancy (as Kurieu stated many times). Whether or not you believe in it is irrelevant. But you cannot outright dismiss it if you call yourself a scientist. It is an alternative theory to evolution that is gaining more and more support even within the scientific community.
It was widly beleived that bacteria could not survive in the harsh conditions existing in the stomach.

The idea was greeted with skepticism, and without the evidence to prove it, the skepticism is waranted. That is how science works. Once the evidence was provided however the scientific community accepted that H. pylori bacteria can reside within the stomach lining.

You're right, I didn't mean to take that tone. I am not dismissing ID, I am dismissing irreducible complexity. If it is shown that mutations are not random then yes you're very right, ID will become a valid theory, enveloping the current ideas of evolution.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#45

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers » Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:35 am

Quote:
One mustn't stick there head in the sand and stop investigating and reasoning and expanding knowledge simply because they believe creation to be true. I don't believe that human embryos have gills, where did this come from? Guess what they won't survive underwater. Are you referring to convolutions in the cephalic end of the fetus that become the head?
The ridges in a human embryo are analagous to the gills in an amphibian. I.E. they become gills in other creatures. No they never develop into functioning gills, and no a fetus does not breathe. So take your head out of the sand and continue investigating.
Uh, no, the ridges in the human embryo have nothing to do with gills. Parts of the ridges become parts of the ear...there is no relationship dippy.

Pharyngl Pouch or something like that-can't spell.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous

Post Reply