Intelligent design theory, PROVEN

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Raggedyman
www.sciencedirect.com...

I'm not a molecular biologist - what does any of that preamble have to do with intelligent design? And why do I need to pay $35.95 to read the article??

journals.plos.org...

This is not a very scientific study:

...connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks

So this "scientist" has already assumed there is a creator and that his research is to prove/substantiate the creator. Somewhat biased approach.

Can't be arsed to read the rest....

Your arguments, all the arguments against the information listed, against me are the same arguments I use against evolution

Funny innit

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: Raggedyman

I only listed a few of many, didnt you read that part?

Yes I did read that.

Since it's your thread the onus is upon you to demonstrate proof. I presume you linked the most proovie ones.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

No I didn't link the Most proovie Ones, I linked the easiest I could find

Nothing I could say, do, or link will prove anything to anyone

What I wanted to show was intelligent design is evident
Science agrees

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Raggedyman

Must I remind you that Evolution doesn't even attempt to discuss how life began?

Chemical evolution is still evolution (no matter what the terms "biological evolution" or "theory of evolution" are used for).
Chemical evolution | Define Chemical evolution at Dictionary.com:

chemical evolution definition.

The formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the early history of the Earth; the first step in the development of life on this planet.

I do hope someone may notice what's going on here:

Since some other people continue to play their twisting game to pretend that others are somehow not allowed to use the word "evolution" when they want to talk about something that includes chemical evolution/abiogenesis by natural causes (these people have also tried to paint a picture as if a person doing that doesn't know what they're talking about or are doing all the things they are doing to people's understanding of language, logic and rational communication; not to mention that there are those who are possibly setting up that play to extend that picture to others as well who might want to argue against these views being defended with endless amounts of twisting and denial of facts, distractions, warping logic and language, etc.); I'm not going to repeat everything I said in this comment about it.

Proverbs 29:1 (NW):

A man who stiffens his neck* after much reproof (* = Or “who remains stubborn.”)
Will suddenly be broken beyond healing.

Proverbs 1:20-33 (NW):

20 True wisdom cries aloud in the street.

It keeps raising its voice in the public squares.

21 At the corner* of the busy streets it calls out. (* = Lit., “head.”)

At the entrances of the city gates it says:

22 “How long will you inexperienced ones love inexperience?

How long will you ridiculers take pleasure in ridicule?

And how long will you foolish ones hate knowledge?

23 Respond to my reproof.* (* = Or “Turn back when I reprove.”)

Then I will pour out my spirit for you;

I will make my words known to you.

24 Because I called out, but you kept refusing,

I stretched out my hand, but no one was paying attention,

25 You kept neglecting all my advice

And rejecting my reproof,

26 I also will laugh when disaster strikes you;

I will mock when what you dread comes,

27 When what you dread comes like a storm,

And your disaster arrives like a storm wind,

When distress and trouble come upon you.

28 At that time they will keep calling me, but I will not answer;

They will eagerly look for me, but they will not find me,

29 Because they hated knowledge,

And they did not choose to fear Jehovah.

30 They refused my advice;

They disrespected all my reproof.

31 So they will bear the consequences* of their way, (* = Lit., “eat from the fruit.”)

And they will be glutted with their own counsel.* (* = Or “schemes; plans.”)

32 For the waywardness of the inexperienced will kill them,

And the complacency of fools will destroy them.

33 But the one listening to me will dwell in security

And be undisturbed by the dread of calamity.”

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well, the latest show in town in science is the idea that we are simulations in some weird computer program.

So, I guess that would presume the existence of some computer guy on the other end. I don't think any of the scientists who back this theory are saying that this computer program, in which we are avatars, just happened by chance.

a reply to: Raggedyman

A simple line of reasoning by Paul Davies is that if you found a rock, you might think that it came about on it's own, but if you found a watch with all its intricate mechanics and such, you would not.

a reply to: cuckooold

The better question is, How can you prove it does'nt exist?

a reply to: rickymouse


You might like to read this.

www.yogamag.net...

The Earth-Tone and The Orange Robe of the Sannyasi

Everything in Nature and in the universe is vibrating, all living creatures and "solid" matter as well. This vibration can be measured, calculated and expressed in Hertz, the standard unit for vibration, such as sound vibration. Higher levels of frequency may be expressed in Nanometers, the standard for expressing colours and light, but this still expresses a level of vibrational frequency. Even planets have their own vibrational frequency, and therefore their own sound. This has been proved by the Swiss scientist Hans Cousto*. Physics teaches us that time and frequency are inversely related to each other. The earth turns around its axis once every 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds, which is 86,164 seconds. This is the time. To find the vibrational frequency (sound frequency) of the earth, we must divide 1 by 86,164 from which we get 0.000 0001 160 576 Hertz. This vibration is, of course, far below human perception, which lies between 1G Hertz and 30/30,000 Hertz.

I'm with the OP on intelligent design.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Evolution is commonly confused with ID when it suits a religious agenda, the fact is that the process of evolution itself creates patterns which would otherwise seem to the uneducated to be "proof" of design.

Ice circles in a lake are not intelligent design, they're simply the result of rotational forces.
The geometric patterns of crystalline structures seem "manufactured", yet they are the result of natural forces.

There are plenty of other examples of this in biology, from DNA structure to the visual aesthetic of symmetry.

None of this is "proof" of any kind of ID, it is proof of how nature creates order out of chaos through a concert of cause and effect.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Raggedyman

So Intelligent Design is a theory, it has evidence, peer reviewed so cant be ignored as a faith anymore, scientific evidence as listed.

what utter twaddle

I thought you folks hated religion not God? I have no use for religion either, but God probably doesn't have a religion either. I find it unlikely that an omnipotent being would relegate Itself to one particular dogma.

Starred.

Intelligent Design is not a problem for me. The problem is every religion on earth trying to place a copyright on the designer.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I can post a ton of pictures of genetic deformities. Intelligent my @$$

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Your math does not make any sense? divide 1 by the seconds in a day to get the earths vibrational frequency?

This is not science

a reply to: Raggedyman


Prof of it is what it is .The human experience is really something isnit . Most of us take for granit that we are a me but like boot or boots on the ground we really need to define the terms of our words .
Drawing the human's into tribes called the, no way's , the could be maybes ,and the for sure's is a reality of life .I have close relatives in each tribe and visit them and can get both joy and frustration when I do .I find myself defending and playing devils advocate for one tribe with the others from time to time .Agreeing to disagree is the common ground and you can be sure there will be staunch dogmatic positions held by some in all tribes .

It takes all kinds to make the world go around and there seems to be none missing .I am convinced that I am a me and I have a soul .I don't need anyone to figure this part out for me and would say that I don't think that anyone could provide prof that it is true or not . It might be a choice that is easy to make one way or another or it could require a lot of soul searching on the part of the individual . But as a starting point it can open the door and act as a foundation to look out .

If not done then we end up relying on others to tell us what is or isn't and what data we will use .Like any data ,it can fail to provide us with our answers we seek .Einstein called the quantum world spooky science .I think the reason may have been one where you need to invent things to explain the math . Black holes or dark matter or anti this or that rules that unknown world .Spooky indeed but will they succeed ? The Bible says that it is possible for man to know and do what ever his heart desires . It also says that the heart of man is wickedly deceptive .

Fool me once shame on you ,.Fool me twice shame on me ..What happens when we fool ourselves .Is there a source of truth that can help us with this thing inside of us ? I choose to seek that help not from science or this world .Science is always changing and their info is based on a abstract tool called math .The closer the measurement the better it looks in this world but in the other world this get spooky .Having a source that knows all about that spooky world is comforting for me .I have no problem with a could be in this or the other world .

We as individuals all need something to help guide us through this thing called life .It should start with the self identity of self .If you cant find you then you have no starting point from which to set your bearing to the destiny you choose for yourself and the may paths that you can take to get there .Back tracking or rethinking is our vocation .Prof one way or another is just a data point that is easy to toss out as it is to incorporate into the maze of the journey . Sorry if a lot of this is just bla-bla-bla .glad if it might stimulate or create 1 thought that helps 1 soul . It is after all just a opinion from a tribe man .peace

LMAO. Another creationist thread that claims proof in the title but offers none. Typical intellectual dishonesty, not like I expected actual proof in an ID thread that says proof. Too many creationist liars out there. Keep on breaking god's commandments to dishonestly promote your religion. Too funny. Can't you stop lying, maybe if just for even one thread? It's not even worth arguing. ID is not a theory or hypothesis. It's a flat out guess, FAR from proven.

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: Raggedyman

I can post a ton of pictures of genetic deformities. Intelligent my @$$

The fact that there are imperfections doesn't make the whole thing bunk. God doesn't have to be omnipotent.

Here's the way I see things regarding "intelligent design" or any sort of "creation" narrative.

First of all - intelligent design is nothing more than the religious trying to reconcile faith with facts. If your religion has been wrong for thousands of years, maybe instead of trying to change an "infallible" religion, it'd be better to drop that which has been proven to be a lie.

Moving on, we have two choices:

A). There are infinite possibilities for how life could have started - or we can just say infinite possibilities for anything in general.

B). Possibilities are limited.

If A is true, then neither God nor intelligent design is needed. With infinite possibilities, life is bound to spring up at some point. Also tied closely to this is the false notion that life occurring happened despite huge mathematical odds against it happening. Well, not quite. The odds of life occurring was/is 100%.

If B is true, then it would suggest God, if He existed, were limited. Limitation flies in the face of omnipotence, rendering Yahweh a demigod at best - non-existent in all probability.

a reply to: polyath

Just because God may be all powerful doesn't mean He chose to use the full extent of that .In fact what we see is that He didn't . Trying to pigeon hole God and saying He should have or could have and them measuring Him to your standards of judgement is invalid .Start doing that and you are going to create a inferior God only based on your limited knowledge of not only this world but to the unseen world .

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Your arguments, all the arguments against the information listed, against me are the same arguments I use against evolution
Funny innit

Well, no, not really.

A creationist or intelligent design person attempts to interpret or ascribe observable phenomena in a way that proves a divine or super being to life on earth. They already believe in God or whoever was the founding reason for life on earth.

REAL scientists do not have that same agenda. Biologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, etc, study the observable phenomena and data to ascertain how life became what it is now by actually looking at what the data says.

They are not there to disprove intelligent design. *IF* their research showed, categorically, that human eyes were the result of an intelligent designer (which they are not, they are poorly constructed) they would say, "It's intelligent design".

But they don't - because so far, nothing at all suggests intelligent design.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1Trying to pigeon hole God and saying He should have or could have and them measuring Him to your standards of judgement is invalid .

How is it invalid? Your "God", according to the scriptures in the bible, say he created man in his own image.

If that's the case, why make us so fallable? So weak? So physically inferior?

If we are meant to be so special, why did you God not give us the ability to see infrared radiation which causes damage? or gamma rays? Why are our eyes so poorly designed in comparison to an eagle, which is a subordinate form of life. Do eagles have better eyes than God?

Why do men have nipples? Why do we grow a coat of hair and then shed it in the womb? Why do human embyros look astonishingly like tadpoles?

NONE of the observable evidence suggests someone or something "intelligent" was behind any of it.

The only thing I will concede, and this is only because I love my scientifical fictions, is that millions of years ago, aliens came, saw some primates and diddled with their DNA in order or to speed along some carefully engineered mutations. That's the limit of my "openmindedness" on intelligent design.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: polyath

Just because God may be all powerful doesn't mean He chose to use the full extent of that .In fact what we see is that He didn't . Trying to pigeon hole God and saying He should have or could have and them measuring Him to your standards of judgement is invalid .Start doing that and you are going to create a inferior God only based on your limited knowledge of not only this world but to the unseen world .

Well, if we take God to be all powerful, then there are infinite possibilities. Ergo, "God" becomes superfluous.

Moving away from debating about God, let's move onto the concept that the universe was intelligently designed,i.e. that everything falls together according to a plan. Indeed, the universe does seem to work like clockwork...except that it doesn't. It's chaotic, but since we know nothing else, it seems ordered. Furthermore, with infinite possibilities - our universe was bound to arise, us included.

There is no reason to assume an intelligent being created anything.

Just a friendly reminder... ID is a religion and has been proven so in a court of law, even with a conservative judge! The judge even chastized the ID proponents for trying to pass off a religion as science and lying about the facts.
ID is auto deceptive.