Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigdanprice
The question is for intelligent design where is the proof of the creator?


Evidence for Intelligent Design is found through reasoning and from the observations of design found throughout nature.





posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Paul_Richard,

There is exceedingly large ammount's of evidence that evolution, life can occur naturally, per chance, without the need of a creator. Again, what evidence, verifiable evidence exists that this natural occurance required a creator? Scientist's have already experimentall proven that inert gasses, under the right condition's will create the organic compounds that lead to life. While none of those experiments have lead to life, we still know very little about all the condition's that existed on prebiotic earth, but we're slowly learning what those condition's were and a possible time frame for life to occur.

But as I stated, exactly what evidence is there for an intelligent designer needed to create life despite the mountains of evidence against such a notion?

[edit on 9-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
"Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism"

No it isn't.

Quite the contrary. ID is a theory and one that can and is based on reason and observation



Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Evolution is a proper theory, despite the holes, because it arose through observation followed by experimentation, and it's forced to endure due skepticism by its association with the scientific community. No such pressure exists on ID.

The pressure on ID is ongoing. If it were a totally unfounded theory, then it would not be receiving so much press coverage, be so controversial and threatening to the scientific community at large, and we would not be debating it now.


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I can look up at the clouds during a thunderstorm and postulate that the flashes of light are reflections off of Jesus' flaming sword, but that doesn't put me on the same level as a meteorologist.

I don't believe in Jesus/Issa to have been nothing more than a prophet, so that argument is irrelevant.


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The folks who tout ID also generally believe in wine to blood transubstantiation, resurrection, miracles drawing their power from God, and a whole host (no pun intended) of other absurdities I don't want to go into. It's not good science, it's just the philosophical equivalent of flatulence, momentarily offensive, but it won't linger long.

The large gap of metaphysical understanding within the scientific community and them not being being able to explain present-day miracles of healing and telekinesis, is an issue in other threads. Suffice to state that miracles do occur and those who choose to ignore them points to close-minded and dogmatic personalities that are inflexible to progressive ideas and learning new paradigms. Just because something can't be proven in a laboratory does not mean that it does not exist, only that the methods of examination are antiquated and not up to the task of accurate analysis.




posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Paul_Richard,

There is exceedingly large ammount's of evidence that evolution, life can occur naturally, per chance, without the need of a creator.

I have yet to see any evidence that life can occur without a creator or higher power who initially started the process. Going back to the Windows program analogy, all the conjecture about life occuring per chance is based within the already created software program -- not outside the PC.




Originally posted by Produkt
Again, what evidence, verifiable evidence exists that this natural occurance required a creator? Scientist's have already experimentall proven that inert gasses, under the right condition's will create the organic compounds that lead to life.

The real test would be to observe life emerging without those inert gases.



Originally posted by Produkt
While none of those experiments have lead to life, we still know very little about all the condition's that existed on prebiotic earth, but we're slowly learning what those condition's were and a possible time frame for life to occur.

Sure...after the basic framework for corporeal life was already established by a higher power.





posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   


I have yet to see any evidence that life can occur without a creator or higher power who initially started the process. Going back to the Windows program analogy, all the conjecture about life occuring per chance is based within the already created software program -- not outside the PC.


Here's something for you to read, just to get an initial understanding behind the process. If you'd like to learn more, google is your friend.

[EDIT] forgot link: www.geocities.com...



The real test would be to observe life emerging without those inert gases.


I do hope you understand chemistry and biology enough, if not then what your saying here is out of complete total ignorance. For instance, you would have to initially learn of the condition's of the universe right after the big bang event, you'd have to learn about the complex interactions between atoms that make up our molecules, which would lead you to discover chemistry and eventually leading you upon the path of biology and finally, you. Ignorance is not an excuse and it's a far cry from evidence.




Sure...after the basic framework for corporeal life was already established by a higher power.


That is a statement, not an example of researched data. Again, I'm asking for evidence, despite the mountains of evidence against it, where is the evidence and proof that a creator was needed to initiate the spark of life.



[edit on 9-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by bigdanprice
The question is for intelligent design where is the proof of the creator?


Evidence for Intelligent Design is found through reasoning and from the observations of design found throughout nature.


I hate to resort to this but: Post your evidence. All you have given is suppositon and is meaningless.
What evidence? what reason? What observations?
I kindly ask you to go back and read my post, i built a coherent argument supported with evidence. I took the time to provide sources.
Please produce yours so we can discuss them.

Thanks
Dan



[edit on 9-2-2006 by bigdanprice]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
The real test would be to observe life emerging without those inert gases.


Originally posted by Produkt
I do hope you understand chemistry and biology enough, if not then what your saying here is out of complete total ignorance. For instance, you would have to initially learn of the condition's of the universe right after the big bang event, you'd have to learn about the complex interactions between atoms that make up our molecules, which would lead you to discover chemistry and eventually leading you upon the path of biology and finally, you. Ignorance is not an excuse and it's a far cry from evidence.

Take away all the components of chemistry and biology and examine through observation to see if -- purely through chance -- corporeal life can emerge. Until that can be done, the argument you espouse remains unproven, unreasonable and illogical.

Additionally, think of all the possible variables that support life: the distance of the planet from a star, the materials that make up the planet itself, the climate, and available gases (oxygen and carbon). There are too many variables for life to occur on this planet and even scientists are astounded by it. Also, think about how many elements that constitute the human body. Do you think that they naturally order themselves into this configuration?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Sure...after the basic framework for corporeal life was already established by a higher power.


Originally posted by Produkt
That is a statement, not an example of researched data. Again, I'm asking for evidence, despite the mountains of evidence against it, where is the evidence and proof that a creator was needed to initiate the spark of life.

I am not disagreeing with you that Evolutionism is not the system that Intelligent Design chose for the emergence of intelligent life. I am just saying that it was originally started by a higher power.




posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Right so no evidence:

I am afraid you cant just forget about 'chemistry, physics and stuff'.
They are an integral part of the world and evolution.

There is evidence that we have evolved and that everything around us has. Its in our DNA, archeological evidence, the list is endless.

The original point of this thread is that ID is a valid scientific theory!
Show me one piece of science that says life was created by a higher being!!!

You cant, its faith on your part:
Faith is belief without reason or evidence
This is not a science.
Please stop dancing around in circles and back up your claims.
Dan

I am guessing your not because you cant.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I overestimated your ability to read between the lines. I will answer your question simply and directly.

I don't think you've overestimated my ability... Though I would appreciate a simple and direct answer to a simple and direct question.

BTW... if you'd take the time to read anything I've ever posted... you'd realized that I could potentially be the best ally you've got in this debate.


I am willing to accept solid evidence that supports the notion that macroevolution exists and that apes have evolved into Homo sapiens. To in essence, find the link between apes and man that is missing in the foundation of evolutionary theory.



Ummm... me too, but you've stated all the types of evidence you're unwilling to accept, ie: evidence from homology, evidence from the fossil record, etc, Very simply and directly: what is an example of the 'solid evidence that supports the notion that macroevolution exists and that apes have evolved into Homo sapiens....?

Just curious



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I seriously can't believe we are discussing this.

First, there is NO evidence for the intelligent design, as opposed to SOME SUBSTANTIAL evidence, not always overwhelming, for evolution.

Second, and this is rarely discussed: in this wild hypothesis of IE, how does the Intelligent entity Interact with our reality that obeys (obviously) the laws of physics and chemistry (which is a branch of physics anyway)?

When you consider this, you realise that the proponents of IE only managed to put a thin veil over the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Read the above. IE equals magic, and teaching IE in schools equals teaching magic. Thanks but no thanks.

Enough shamanism.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigdanprice
The question is for intelligent design where is the proof of the creator?


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Evidence for Intelligent Design is found through reasoning and from the observations of design found throughout nature.


Originally posted by bigdanprice
I hate to resort to this but: Post your evidence. All you have given is suppositon and is meaningless.
What evidence? what reason? What observations?
I kindly ask you to go back and read my post...Please produce yours so we can discuss them.

There are various arguments which are based on reason and observation that support the theory of Intelligent Design.

For example...

Natural Theology

The Teleological Argument

The Cosmological Argument




posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
So far you have only made the argument that ID is a philosophy based on assertion. So ID is not as valid as ToE from a scientific POV.

I also see a place for a creator but I understand this is my assertion with no scientific basis and does not belong in a science classroom. Incredulity is not enough for science, it needs experimental evidence.

[edit on 9-2-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Paul Richard I would like to thank you very much for proving my point

They are all PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS



Cosmological Argument
# Everything has a cause.
# Nothing can cause itself.
# Everything is caused by another thing.
# A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
# There must be a first cause.
# God was the first cause





Teleogical Argument
1. X is too complex to have occurred randomly or naturally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by an intelligent being.
3. God is that intelligent being.
4. Therefore, God exists.


Not scientific Evidence, which is what you demand of us.
Please post some scientific evidence.
Dan
EDIT spelling

[edit on 9-2-2006 by bigdanprice]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   


Take away all the components of chemistry and biology and examine through observation to see if -- purely through chance -- corporeal life can emerge. Until that can be done, the argument you espouse remains unproven, unreasonable and illogical.

Additionally, think of all the possible variables that support life: the distance of the planet from a star, the materials that make up the planet itself, the climate, and available gases (oxygen and carbon). There are too many variables for life to occur on this planet and even scientists are astounded by it. Also, think about how many elements that constitute the human body. Do you think that they naturally order themselves into this configuration?


All these variables happened per chance. This is why we see life here today and not on Io, for example. Although we just might find life on Io that completley defies earth based biology. In no way whatsoever is it illogical. Ignorance is not proof. If you wish to remain ignorant on how each of these intricate procceses interact with one another, by chance, and chance alone to eventually lead to what we define as life, then that's your choice.




I am not disagreeing with you that Evolutionism is not the system that Intelligent Design chose for the emergence of intelligent life. I am just saying that it was originally started by a higher power.


Again, a statement. Not evidence. Please provide evidence that supports the idea of a creator. There is none. As you keep showing with mere statements.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigdanprice
Paul Richard I would like to thank you very much for proving my point

They are all PHILOSIPHICAL ARGUMENTS

Dan,

First off...

It's PHILOSOPHICAL, not PHILOSIPHICAL.


Science in its beginnings as well as today, bases its conclusions on observation, inference, and experimentation. Observation as well as reason based on inference are found in both scientific as well as in philosophical thought.

In light of this, the educated person without prejudice realizes that there are elements of inference and observation in traditional science as well as in the theory of Intelligent Design.





posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by bigdanprice
Paul Richard I would like to thank you very much for proving my point

They are all PHILOSIPHICAL ARGUMENTS

Dan,

First off...

It's PHILOSOPHICAL, not PHILOSIPHICAL.


Science in its beginnings as well as today, bases its conclusions on observation, inference, and experimentation. Observation as well as reason based on inference are found in both scientific as well as in philosophical thought.

In light of this, the educated person without prejudice realizes that there are elements of inference and observation in traditional science as well as in the theory of Intelligent Design.




yes, philosophy was the source of science as we know it and is also used in modern science as a source of testable, falsifiable hypotheses. But ID is currently untestable, unfalsifiable, and tautological and will stay as philosophy for now.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
A statement is not evidence certainly but what troubles me is evidence for evolution is given, evidence for chemical reactions bringing forth the first rudimentary life forms is given but what created the gas, or the atoms that make up that gas or the... so on and so on ad infinitum. At some point in the process something came from nothing which in itself smacks of the metaphysical or else something was put in place to start the ball rolling so who or what put this in place, at present science is unable to address this adequately and therefore the onus is on philisophical speculation to provide theories or at the very least challenge the dogma of scientism, that is those who believe science knows everything and what it doesn't know isn't important anyway. It may be that the answers to life and the universe are and always will be beyond our comprehension so therefore philosophy becomes the only means of dealing with these questions. ID is not science it is philosophy and that's no bad thing, why philosophy is treated as the poor relation is beyond me IMO it's the mentor to scientific enquiry.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
The pressure on ID is ongoing. If it were a totally unfounded theory, then it would not be receiving so much press coverage, be so controversial and threatening to the scientific community at large, and we would not be debating it now.


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I can look up at the clouds during a thunderstorm and postulate that the flashes of light are reflections off of Jesus' flaming sword, but that doesn't put me on the same level as a meteorologist.

I don't believe in Jesus/Issa to have been nothing more than a prophet, so that argument is irrelevant.


Taurus feces.


Don't even tell that flat out LIE. ID is not getting so much press because it's a valid "scientific" theory. It's only because of the influence of Christians. I don't give a damn what you or any other person who supports ID feel about a connection between ID and Christianity or lack thereof, Christians are the ONLY reason that ID is getting press. They've hijacked it to get creationism into schools (round 2).

Don't even pretend like that ain't real. If it wasn't for the Christians using ID for their own agenda, ID would not be such a hot topic these days. But, me, I see that the biggest proponents of ID are also Christians, so this fact, along with the obvious hijacking, leads me to believe that ID really is veiled creationism for the most part.

You missed WyrdeOne's point, too. I guess him mentioning Jesus sidetracked you
. His point was that his belief for the nature of a natural phenomenon would not be as valid as a person involved in studying this natural phenomenon, in a SCIENTIFIC way.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
ubermunche,

Evolution deal's with the begining's of life. Big bang deals with the beginings of the universe that created all these atoms, gas's, etc. The underlying physics behind it is pretty well understood nowaday's. While there mayb never be direct evidence for what initiated the big bang, our understanding of physics does predict and mathmaticly show evidence that such an event can occur without the need of a creator. Creationism/ID fail's this. They can not show evidence of a creator, nor a need for a creator. The statement's here trying to be pushed as evidence are based upon ignorance of what is well understood by those repective scientist's in whichever field of study where all this is being discovered and proven.

As far as ID is concerned. I believe that a cigarette created the universe. now test that statement. I could say that this cigarette posses magical properties that allowed it to design the universe and life. Again, another untestable statement. This is what ID is. Untestable statement's. By what reason and observation are you infering that the universe and life requires a creator? Even that alone you don't provide any furthur evidence that would lead you to conclude this statement.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche
A statement is not evidence certainly but what troubles me is evidence for evolution is given...

Only evidence of microevolution.

No evidence has been presented of marcoevolution and of a direct link between apes and humankind. The assumption of a direct link without evidence is pure supposition.


Originally posted by ubermunche
At some point in the process something came from nothing which in itself smacks of the metaphysical or else something was put in place to start the ball rolling so who or what put this in place...

Yes...the who or what in this case referred to as a higher power.


Originally posted by ubermunche
...at present science is unable to address this adequately and therefore the onus is on philisophical speculation to provide theories or at the very least challenge the dogma of scientism, that is those who believe science knows everything and what it doesn't know isn't important anyway.

You are quite correct.


Much of the scientific establishment has become as dogmatic in their thinking as the inquisitors of the Roman Catholic Church who hunted down and silenced "heretics."


Originally posted by ubermunche
It may be that the answers to life and the universe are and always will be beyond our comprehension so therefore philosophy becomes the only means of dealing with these questions. ID is not science it is philosophy and that's no bad thing, why philosophy is treated as the poor relation is beyond me IMO it's the mentor to scientific enquiry.

The scientific community wishes to remain in control and they feel threatened by ideas that they perceive as lessning their power in society, sociologically and educationally.

But a hypothesis that is based on reason and oberservation is a theory nonetheless. The irony being that many scientific theories in their formative stages were based solely on reason and observation -- without laboratory experimentation.







top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution