It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

page: 21
1
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
IOW Denton, like other IDist's draws his inference of design through empirical observation, that is Denton believes the scientific evidence suggests design. Denton doesn't start with a creator and work backwards as you'd have as believe; neither do Behe or most other prominent design theorists.

It is distinctly not saying "I believe in a creator, so I must pursue intelligent design." In fact it's quite the opposite. It's more akin to "The existing evidence points to the hallmarks of pre-existing intelligence, thus I've adopted a 'design' perspective.


Ok, let's assume that it is such the case. Where does it lead us? it leads us to a point that the universe is created by an intelligent designer.

In other words, the judaic GOD.

So even if an ID "scientist" does not start with the creator in mind, he/she ends up with a creator in their hands.




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
I bring this one up in particular because you seem to be confused. You seem to think that offering support of another model is somehow disproving evolutionary theory.


Actually, you are master in manipulating words. ID disproves evolutionary theory: the evolutionary theory suggests that a mechanism is behind ALL observed phenomena. ID suggests that a mechanism is behind SOME oberved phenomena, while the rest of phenomena are DESIGNED.

See? there is a difference.



is an 'attempt to disprove evolutionary theory?' You can't. Two reasons, the biggest is because it doesn't, it makes a case for mutation not being a random undirected process, but an adaptive process, and the second, but no less significant is because I'd be willing to bet you didn't read it.


how come an adaptive process is design?



I understood it quite well. I'm still willing to bet that all you did was visit the link and read the abstracts, which btw, are not the actual published abstracts, and didn't so much as download and read even a single page from one of those articles.


Bleh, all you do is whining because nobody is reading your precious texts. Well, guess what? nobody has the time to analyse the completely bogus texts you post.

And there is no need to go any further into this. Even a child can understand that it is either mechanism all the way down or not .



Would you care to elaborate on the evidence that chromosome rearrangements are in fact random process and not somehow directed as is implied in the latter article I mentioned.


Directed? how is there evidence that it is 'directed' by an ID? without reading the book, one can smell the inconcistency from a million miles: absence of proof is not proof of absence...and therefore chromosome rearrangements may not be random (not that I know), but that does not make them directed by an ID.



Please explain why these authors are wrong. Please explain how chromosome rearrangements and Transposable elements are evidence for a random process like evolution, vs. ID.


evolution is not about randomness only. In fact, it is not about randomness at all.



As I mentioned, those are not published abstracts, they are synopses of evidence with comparisons and contrasts to the predominant paradigm. Your request, insisting that 'evidence for ID' be free of mention of the currently accepted paradigm is unreasonable and absurd.


Ok, show us anything then that proves something is designed by an intelligent designer.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
what is 'tangible signs'?

what qualifies as 'tangible' or not?

if you say "preexisting", don't you put a spacetime constraint on it?

how come signs are evidence?

Look... you can use a dictionary. If you're confused about words, look 'em up. I'm not going to hold your hand.

With respect your spacetime comment. In the first of a long line of corrections re: ID, no there is no constraint put on the designer, as the designer isn't part of ID. It's called intelligent design, not intelligent designer. The designer question is unscientific the design question is not.


Originally posted by masterp
Of course you have. There is no way to prove or disprove that an intelligent designer acted upon nature's structures.

Never said there was. There are however myriad ways to rule out the necessity of design.


Can you at least tell us WHY THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER BUILT THIS MARVELLOUS UNIVERSE?

Absolutely... of course, it would be a philosophical answer and not a scientific one, but I could certainly answer this question. Of course, it would have nothing to do with ID.



How come ID is an explanation? it does not explain anything, it only offers a conclusion.

ID offers no conclusions, only a different basis for hypothesis formation.



The Bible has nothing to do with ID. You're thinking of Creationism.


Hypocrisy at its full effect.

Clarification please. ID and creationism are different theories. It's the reason Dembski isn't aligned with a group like AiG, or ICR. They have different ideas, and thus are different theories, in the colloquial sense of the word.



Nope. It is not a theory, because it does not have a logical structure, and it is not only about origins, because an intelligent designer can put his devine hand anywhere.

Ummm... it is only about origins. Where else does ID put its 'hand?' Nowhere, it's strictly a cosmological/biological origins idea. I understand that you don't like it, but it is what it is.


From the moment we accept the presence of an intelligent designer, all hell breaks loose: "I don't like you and I shot you? that's ok, the intelligent designer told me. He has higher plans, I don't know."

I'm sorry, but this has to be the lamest argument against ID I've ever heard. Somehow accepting ID as a legitimate theory somehow precludes free will. I'm sorry, you're going to have to clarify here too.



Totally untrue. The idea arose specifically from observed phenomena. In fact, what ID does is exactly this. Mike Behe was an evolutionist for years before becoming an IDist. Why did this happen? What did he somehow lose knowledge re: origins theories? In fact, this is the story in many cases. Often times supporters of the ID movement were in fact once ardent evolutionists, myself included. The science is what brought many people to ID in the first place.



You are a supreme twister of reality! you are fine "snake oil" salesman, sir!

Look, here it goes:

1) it is either that ALL things have a system of laws that allows its creation or

2) no thing has a system of laws.

You can not apply a systemic approach partially. ID does exactly that.

Okay... going to have to ask for clarification again. Snake oil salesman, and twister of reality... so what you're saying is that Behe, myself, Mike Denton, and other scientists weren't formerly evolutionists?

Wow... I can't speak for the others, but I can't understand how I can be so confused about my own past. Honestly, I thought I grew up an atheist, and firm proponent of evolutionary theory.

Thanks for the insight. Perhaps you can let me know what other things about my past I am mistaken about. Did I even have a dog named Rubin? I feel like I did. What about mountain biking... do I even enjoy that. Hey - did I really screw up my knee? I remember doing that, but if I didn't, it would be a load off my mind.

With respect to your list... patently and utterly untrue. Systems of laws and 'no laws' happen to peacefully coexist. There certainly are laws of physics, but I have the free will to walk away from this computer and not address even a single one of your bogus claims. There is certainly no law keeping me at this keyboard, but there absolutely is a law keeping me stuck to the couch.


There is no such thing as ID-based experiments. It is a phrase that does not make sense, because ID is a hypothesis in the first place that is unprovable.

Sure there are. I've proposed multiple ID based experiments right here in these forums. Origins theories by there very nature are unprovable.



No, not really. If you hypothesise about design, you are hypothesizing about a creator.

No, you're hypothesizing about design, you're merely inferring a designer, though it's not relevant to the design hypothesis.



Analogy is not logic. You can not use analogy to reach a logical conclusion. For example:

Actually, you're quite mistaken. The argument from analogy is the simplest variety of inductive reasoning. Inductive arguments are the stuff the hyptotheses are constructed with.


-"a black person broke into my house"
-"most people in prison are blacks"
-"therefore blacks have a tendency to crime"

The above perfectly analogous argument is bogus, of course.

Not only is it bogus, it's not an argument from analogy. In fact, the arguments don't follow logically from one another.



Please. Design theory has existed in one form or another since at least the Greeks. The concept of design isn't new or foreign.



Nope. Greeks did not embrace the design theory, at all. Not even one of them. Greeks embraced the mechanistic view, that the world is like a clock, and everything that happens is due to some law.

Okay... so... this doesn't precluede the greeks from believing a designer started all natural law, which they did. So you want to describe Greeks as materialists... okay so be it, you're wrong, but you're more than welcome to do it, and pretty much no one, not even the ID opponents agree with you, but hey no one said opinions at ATS have to be informed.



Others would claim that the scientific roots of the movement go even further back. Some claim it's roots really begin in 1967, with Michael Polanyi, a physical chemist who stated that

“machines are irreducible to physics and chemistry” and that “mechanistic structures of living beings appear to be likewise irreducible.”
Please see Chem and Eng. News 45(35):54 1967.


Bleh...you are talking about "scientific roots", where at the same time someone pulled an "irreducible" opinion out of his arse.

Exactly, the scientific roots of the design movement date back to about the late 1960's. You're perfectly free to mock the opinion of anyone and everyone, of course, it doesn't make you look very bright, when you mock them from a perspective of total ignorance, and while deny ignorance, is certainly the motto here at ATS, I suppose you're free to wallow in it.



Why should ID be pursuited? at which point and who decides where design stops and mechanism starts? what if someone manages to prove that whatever seems irreducible today might not be as such tomorrow (as it has happened a lot in science)?

Pursuited... hmmm... didn't spend much time in English class did we? Who decides? The data decides... same thing as always. If someone manages to disprove an ID tenet, then so be it, it's the way science works. what if someone disproves some tenet of evolution? Science goes on.


And answer me this: WHY THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER STARTED TO DESIGN THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

I can answer, but only from a philosophical perspective, not a scientific one.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   


He he now mr Christian-guy-who-is-not-christian wants to show a higher profile. Nice try, we won't buy it, though.

I couldn't care less if you 'buy' my opinion. I do enjoy the blanket assumption of Christianity though... it is a nice touch. It pretty much further validates how incredibly uninformed and far removed from reality your opinion re: me specifically and ID more generally is. But again, you're free to assume whatever you like.



You are either undermining students or overestimating origins.

Nope... just giving my honest opinion as a person who has likely lectured more hours on biology at the college level than you've attended at all levels of school.


Originally posted by masterp
But once we accept ID as true, what else is left? then ID supporters will push it in schools.

Like any scientific idea, we shouldn't be accepting them as true. No in this thread, nor elsewhere in the ID community suggests 'you accept ID as true.' The only thing I've ever suggested is letting ID based scientists do their research and not be subjected an academic witch hunt.



On the surface, they seem different. But, in reality, their essence is the same: "someone outside the universe has created or is creating things".

Okay... by that definition, Darwin, Newton, Einstein, all creationists.


Originally posted by masterp
But those people did not think of 'irreducible complexity' and such bogus things. They tried to analyse the mystery they had in front of them.

They didn't think of IC because they weren't faced with systems of staggering complexity. The cell was believed to be a simple blob of protoplasm. That's the point ID researchers wish to investigate the mystery. Design isn't an explanation, it's an inference, and a basis for hypothesis formation.


At best they believed that they discovered God's formulas. But that is different from ID: God may have set the universe in motion, and then did not manipulate it any more, it let it evolve through a set of laws. Whereas ID supports intervention.
Untrue. Everything you've stated here fits in with an ID based hypothesis. ID may allow for intervention, but in no way requires anything more than a single intervention. It'd be nice if you made even an elementary effort to inform yourself about this stuff prior to commenting.


Originally posted by masterp
Ok, let's assume that it is such the case. Where does it lead us? it leads us to a point that the universe is created by an intelligent designer.

In other words, the judaic GOD.

It leads us to make design based hypotheses. How does one jump from 'a designer' to the necessity of the "Judaic God." It doesn't, it's apparently just the best you can do when you don't know anything about the theory. My goodness, man, at least read a website or two.


So even if an ID "scientist" does not start with the creator in mind, he/she ends up with a creator in their hands.

No they start with a design inference, a hypothesis from design, and results that either support or refute their hypothesis. Perhaps you should read up on the scientific method as well.




Originally posted by masterp
Actually, you are master in manipulating words. ID disproves evolutionary theory: the evolutionary theory suggests that a mechanism is behind ALL observed phenomena. ID suggests that a mechanism is behind SOME oberved phenomena, while the rest of phenomena are DESIGNED.

Nope completely and utterly untrue. ID's main competition is abiogenesis. Many ID theorists, for example, Mike Behe are perfectly comfortable with the theory of common descent.


See? there is a difference.

Again, your lack of any info re: this topic isn't helping you formulate effective arguments.



how come an adaptive process is design?

It's an prediction from design based hypotheses.



Bleh, all you do is whining because nobody is reading your precious texts. Well, guess what? nobody has the time to analyse the completely bogus texts you post.

Again, I couldn't care less if you read them. But don't offer your opinion as informed if you've not read them. I do again appreciate you calling things you've not read 'bogus' Is that how you approach all information, evaluation prior to actually reading? Great MO... it's likely to get really far in life.



And there is no need to go any further into this. Even a child can understand that it is either mechanism all the way down or not .

Hmmm... that's funny, because the theories of common descent don't in fact flow 'all the way down.' There are many inconsistencies in the theory, and it certainly doesn't apply to formation of the first cell. I guess common descent is bogus then too, huh?




Directed? how is there evidence that it is 'directed' by an ID? without reading the book, one can smell the inconcistency from a million miles: absence of proof is not proof of absence...and therefore chromosome rearrangements may not be random (not that I know), but that does not make them directed by an ID.

The 'evidence' that it is directed is contained in the article.

It's not a book, it's an article you can download for free, and if you can't download it, I can u2u it. I have access to pretty much all the science journals.

Again, I do marvel at your ability to evaluate evidence without reading it. Who said anything about 'absence of proof.' This is something you merely inferred. I wonder why you would do that. Oh yeah... I forgot... you didn't read it either. Again, I couldn't care less if you read it, I understand, your world view is extremely important to you, and you don't want it threatened. But please don't try to come off as being informed about this stuff when it appears you're not even familiar with the evolution literature, much less the ID literature.



evolution is not about randomness only. In fact, it is not about randomness at all.

Completely and utterly false, all evolutionary innovation is inferred to be the result of natural selections action on random variation. How is this not about randomness, and if the variation isn't random, then what is it, directed? Directed by what?



Ok, show us anything then that proves something is designed by an intelligent designer.

No origins theory is subject to proof in the classical definition of the word. And judging by your inability to even consider any ID based literature, I would estimate that the above request is not fulfillable.



[edit on 4-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
ID ... the biggest BS psuedo-science of all time.

It's funny how ID supporter's will claim that the designer itself is irrelevent to the theory. Obviously common sense dictate's that this is pure BS at the highest level's of idiocy. You can not claim that something designed all life and then REFUSE to acknowledge anything about such a designer. From what I've gathered of IDism (READ: CREATIONISM) is that they posit that life is to complex to have arisen naturally, or that atleast SOME aspect's of life is to complex.

Interesting notion, considering that such a belief easily lays doubt to a designer, atleast for people with half a brain. If life, or some aspects of life are simply just oh so woefully to complex to occur naturally, then how does a designer come about? Let's ask Dembski and Behe, both are quoted as to believing the designer is the christian god. Interesting, isn't it? Obviously, from the religous aspect of IDism, our beloved designer (READ: GOD) doesn't need explanation, he's been there always as a supernatural entity outside the realm's of scientific scrutiny. But, if we try to CHANGE the definition of science as the great Behe and company would like to do, then yes... IDism would be a science, as it would leave open all supernatural explanations as valid scientific inquries. Such as astrology, alchemy, black magic, etc.

What does ID predict? Nothing. It assume's that junk DNA isn't junk DNA, AFTER scientist's have already been discovering that junk DNA isn't really 100% junk. Go figure. What new idea's has IDism brought about? None really. Read the bible, or any ancient philosopher's written documents on the origins of life. Let's not forget that the modern revival of IDism, the guy who started it all himself has stated that IDism was originated just to get people closer to GOD. To get GOD into our school systems. All of the major player's in IDism believe that their designer is GOD.

What evidence do we have of design? None. Not one single shred of evidence. Everything they keep positing as design is completly knocked down and shown as to have occured through natural processes. Why is IDism not taken as a valid scientific field? GOD. You cannot repackage religion and call it science. You cannot change the definition of science to include god.

What I'd like to know, and still haven't gotten a good answer on (please no beating around the bush BS and outright avoidence), why doesn't IDism have to discuss the designer?

If life is to complex for natural processes, then what's that say of such a designer. UNLESS of course that designer is god, i.e, not a natural designer such as an alien being.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
What I'd like to know, and still haven't gotten a good answer on (please no beating around the bush BS and outright avoidence), why doesn't IDism have to discuss the designer?

Because it's not part of the theory (colloquial use)



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Your a wonder for beating around the bush answer's.

X end result was created by X designer, X end result is too complex to occur naturally and thus REQUIRED X designer.

Note, that in order for X end result to have been designed, A DESIGNER WAS REQUIRED. The whole basis of this new religous garbage is centered around the ASSUMPTION that a designer even exist's. How can ID NOT have anything to do with the designer (READ: GOD) when the whole basis of the movement is based upon the entire assumption that there even IS a designer! Cut the BS bush beating like every other IDer.

Life is to complex in the world of IDism. Hence we can now rule out alien being's doing the designing. What does this leave us for a designer? GOD. A supernatural entity of immense power. We need not call it the christian god, but honestly there is no difference. Obviously IDist's can't push ID into school with the current definition of science, hence the need to REWRITE the definition of science to include the supernatural. Because as we all know, life is just oh so woefully to complex in the IDist's world.

Nothing in IDism has been shown to have ANY element's of design, just bozo's who don't bother to learn abit more about the very system their attacking. And these people have PHd's?! The flagellum, the eye, blood clotting? Wouldn't a scientist rather then poking at hole's and making any old moronic claim, such as blood clotting is IC, do some research instead and try to IDK, make sure they are right? THAT is what science is. It's not spewing out some religous garbage, trying to push religous garbage into schools or changing definitions, or using politics to push agenda's.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
X end result was created by X designer, X end result is too complex to occur naturally and thus REQUIRED X designer.

ID doesn't state this.


Nothing in IDism has been shown to have ANY element's of design, just bozo's who don't bother to learn abit more about the very system their attacking. And these people have PHd's?! The flagellum, the eye, blood clotting? Wouldn't a scientist rather then poking at hole's and making any old moronic claim, such as blood clotting is IC, do some research instead and try to IDK, make sure they are right? THAT is what science is. It's not spewing out some religous garbage, trying to push religous garbage into schools or changing definitions, or using politics to push agenda's.

And your PhD is in......



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Jesus flipping christ ... The level's of hypocracy you exist on are amazing.

Are you going to sit here and try and tell us good common sense loving people that design theory doesn't posit that, for example ... blood clotting is too complex to occur naturally and must have been designed? Of course, regardless of the fact that blood clotting isn't some IC mumbo jumbo system.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
Jesus flipping christ ... The level's of hypocracy you exist on are amazing.

Are you going to sit here and try and tell us good common sense loving people that design theory doesn't posit that, for example ... blood clotting is too complex to occur naturally and must have been designed? Of course, regardless of the fact that blood clotting isn't some IC mumbo jumbo system.

Yep, because it doesn't say that. You might want read this stuff BEFORE trying to 'debunk' it.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
So, two of the biggest people in IDism are completly and totally in error when saying X end result was designed? They were in error when they proclaimed that the flagellum showed elements of design?

Why is there so much damn hypocracy in the world of IDism? What is it? Some kind of pastime? Let's see who can spew the most hypocracy contest?

I have been reading up on it. No, not religoulsy as I personally could care less about religion or any form of it. If you'd like I can pull up quote after quote after quote from Behe, Dembski, Paley, just about any IDer you care to hear from.

From what I'm gathering in your spout of hypocracy, your trying to tell me that ID doesn't claim that X end result was to complex to require a designer? Honestly, it's just all confusing with definition rewrite's, claim's of IC that aren't IC, political publicity stunts in order to circumvent true scientific methods, and claims that make no logical sense. Really does one's head in trying to make some sort of sense out of all this nonsense.

Perhaps your vision of what ID is is totally different ... I know there a few differing concepts floating around, just like there's a few differing denomination of christianity. So perhaps, just to clear thing's abit you could give your account of what IDism is.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
So, two of the biggest people in IDism are completly and totally in error when saying X end result was designed?

They don't say this.


They were in error when they proclaimed that the flagellum showed elements of design?

They certainly could be.


I have been reading up on it. No, not religoulsy as I personally could care less about religion or any form of it.

Obviously you've been reading refutations of ID and not actually ID.


If you'd like I can pull up quote after quote after quote from Behe, Dembski, Paley, just about any IDer you care to hear from.

I've offered you no quotes.


From what I'm gathering in your spout of hypocracy,

The word is hypocrisy. It appears that in addition to reading religious texts, you're not too fond of English texts either.


your trying to tell me that ID doesn't claim that X end result was to complex to require a designer?

Ummm.... it's you're, not your. Your is possessive, while you're is a contraction of you are. And I have managed to pull some meaning from this garbled sentence above. It appears you are trying to ask if I'm trying to tell you that ID doesn't claim that 'x,' whatever x may be, is 'too complex' and must have required a designer.

Correct. I am saying that ID doesn't look at system x and state 'it's too complex, and must have required a designer.' ID definitely doesn't do this.


Really does one's head in trying to make some sort of sense out of all this nonsense.

Well... no one said learning was easy. Keep trying though... you'll probably get the hang of it eventually.


Perhaps your vision of what ID is is totally different ... I know there a few differing concepts floating around, just like there's a few differing denomination of christianity. So perhaps, just to clear thing's abit you could give your account of what IDism is.


Okay for the 1,000,000,001 time in this particular thread, god forbid you have to scroll back and actually read something: ID is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   


ID is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence.


Right, such as blood clotting is too complex and show's signs or elements of design by a preexisting (albiet, nonexistent) designer.

X end product (blood clotting, flagellum, etc) must have been designed.

And as we all know, since blood clotting is woefully to complex we can now rule out alien's being the designer and what we're left with is a supernatural entity which just about ever top IDer believe's to be GOD.

From the great Dembski himself.

"a complex object must be the result of intelligence if it was the product neither of chance nor of necessity."

MUST. Key word there.

Or is Dembski just a bumbling idiot and does not know what he's talking about?

Or we can talk about Behe, who acknowledged under oath that IC is utterly flawed. Maybe not in so many words, but essentially that is the gist of it.

From Behe's book, Darwin's black box

"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

What this is saying is that an IC system is to complex to have occured through natural evolutionary means. An IC system can't function on it's own in parts and need's to be whole.

Honestly, you've got no leg to stand on when it come's to IDism. It's already been shown to be a repackaged creationism, admittedly so by it's founder. Shown to be flawed. Shown to be nothing more then a politcal excersice to get creationism taught in schools. And has literally NOTHING to offer as evidence or anything original of it's own.

It's not science. It's religion. And I do read both side's of the story here. It's just hard to swallow the IDist's side when it lacks evidence and admits that it's a religion packaged as science.

It's one thing to say... have interest in some new fangled theory, it's another to sit there and defend something that is knowingly and admittingly wrong.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
Right, such as blood clotting is too complex and show's signs or elements of design by a preexisting (albiet, nonexistent) designer.

X end product (blood clotting, flagellum, etc) must have been designed.

And as we all know, since blood clotting is woefully to complex we can now rule out alien's being the designer and what we're left with is a supernatural entity which just about ever top IDer believe's to be GOD.j

"too complex" are your words, nowhere in my definition do the words "too complex" appear. Obviously we won't be able to discuss this rationally, as you can't seem to stay focused on the definition that was provided for you.


From the great Dembski himself.

"a complex object must be the result of intelligence if it was the product neither of chance nor of necessity."

Okay, so you have an alternative hypothesis for something that is the product of neither chance nor necessity? Great! I'd love to hear it.

There's nothing fundamentally erroneous about this statement.


MUST. Key word there.

Okay... I'll ask again: If something isn't the product of chance or necessity, what is an alternative besides design?


Or is Dembski just a bumbling idiot and does not know what he's talking about?

Opinions vary.


Or we can talk about Behe, who acknowledged under oath that IC is utterly flawed. Maybe not in so many words, but essentially that is the gist of it.

Another completely untrue, and utterly unsubstantiated statement. I can see why you get so upset when I insist people don't describe things they think up as being 'evidence,' it appears to be your MO.


From Behe's book, Darwin's black box

"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Hmmmm... you're going to have point out for me the words "too complex" in this definition, for the life of me, I can't find 'em.


What this is saying is that an IC system is to complex to have occured through natural evolutionary means.

Nope, it doesn't say that at all. It says:

An IC system can't function on it's own in parts and need's to be whole.

You seem to understand it, so please stop making stuff up.


Honestly, you've got no leg to stand on when it come's to IDism. It's already been shown to be a repackaged creationism, admittedly so by it's founder.

BS. Who exactly is founder of ID. And if this has been shown, you should have no problem substantiating this.


Shown to be flawed. Shown to be nothing more then a politcal excersice to get creationism taught in schools. And has literally NOTHING to offer as evidence or anything original of it's own.

Okay... so this is what your 6th post where you claim these types of things. Time to put up or shut up, bud. Either back your claims up, or go back to the forums at Nickelodeon.com


It's not science. It's religion. And I do read both side's of the story here. It's just hard to swallow the IDist's side when it lacks evidence and admits that it's a religion packaged as science.

You've obviously read no ID if you're still trying to pass it off as religion, especially when you're trying to pass it off to a non-religious supporter of ID.


It's one thing to say... have interest in some new fangled theory, it's another to sit there and defend something that is knowingly and admittingly wrong.

And it's a whole other thing to try and 'debunk' things which you apparently don't understand in even a rudimentary way.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Another completely untrue, and utterly unsubstantiated statement. I can see why you get so upset when I insist people don't describe things they think up as being 'evidence,' it appears to be your MO.


Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Should keep up with the news bud.


BS. Who exactly is founder of ID. And if this has been shown, you should have no problem substantiating this.


Well, George Allman was actually the first IIRC to coin the term Intelligent Design, although his usuage of the term is different from the modern usage. We can go back abit furthur in time however and find elements of IDism by Heraclitus, around 5th century B.C. Whereas Phillip Johnson is considered the "father" of the modern Intelligent Design movement. One of many quote's of interest is this.

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

Do you even bother to look into all of this or do you just blindly follow your beloved Behe and Dembski?



Okay... so this is what your 6th post where you claim these types of things. Time to put up or shut up, bud. Either back your claims up, or go back to the forums at Nickelodeon.com


Awww... Don't start pouting yet! Well, I did put up. So can I stay? Or you going to throw another hissy fit and brush aside the evidence of what ID really is?




You've obviously read no ID if you're still trying to pass it off as religion, especially when you're trying to pass it off to a non-religious supporter of ID.


A non-religous supporter of IDism? Christ is that possible? I ... I don't get it! OMFG WHY! HOW?! What kind of a crazy screwed up place is this?!! Where's the damn common sense in it all? How is it that my eyes needed to be designed as Behe suggest's or my blood clotting or my flagellum, but some non-religous entity can just .. ARGH! Take the blue pill take the blue pill take the blue pill... this world is filled with crazy people, take the damn blue pill!



And it's a whole other thing to try and 'debunk' things which you apparently don't understand in even a rudimentary way.


There's nothing in ID to debunk! Nor am I trying to. That'd be pointless and pretty stupid. Showing ID for what it is, and what it was originally attended for is entirely different then "debunking". And then you went all crazy ... wtf... non religous supporter? You make my brain hurt.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
What Would Darwin Do?

Passionate debate is fine (I'm quite fond of it myself), but it's very important to focus on the topics and avoid being abusive toward other members.

Courtesy Is Mandatory

The ATS ecosystem favors members who can honor the T&C and express themselves politely.

Other strategies have a poor track record for survival in this environment.


So let's please constrain our comments to the topic and respect the intelligent design of this online community.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Should keep up with the news bud.

I'm familiar with it. Do you expect me to reread the whole transcript to find a quote that likely doesn't exist?

Here's some news for you: References means refering to specific statement. The point is back up your assertion with the statement. Don't send someone to read a whole trial transcript. This is distinctly not 'putting up,' and is more akin to literature bluffing.


Well, George Allman was actually the first IIRC to coin the term Intelligent Design, although his usuage of the term is different from the modern usage. We can go back abit furthur in time however and find elements of IDism by Heraclitus, around 5th century B.C. Whereas Phillip Johnson is considered the "father" of the modern Intelligent Design movement. One of many quote's of interest is this.

Not that I agree that either of these two are the founders of the modern ID movement; but in any case, how does this statement prove that ID has "already been shown to be a repackaged creationism, admittedly so by it's founder." From what I can tell it doesn't.

I know it's tough, but please try to address specifics related to the discussion we're having, and not just throw around information in a 'willy-nilly' fashion.


"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

I know where this quote comes from, but many other readers may not. When you include a quote, please include some sort of description, and the source.

Specifically, how does this statement demonstrate that ID is repackaged Creationism?


Do you even bother to look into all of this or do you just blindly follow your beloved Behe and Dembski?

Beloved? It's a bit of a stretch, but ummm... yeah... I'll bet you... I don't know... all of my ATS points, that I'm better read on the issue of ID, and the issue of evolution than you are.



Awww... Don't start pouting yet! Well, I did put up. So can I stay? Or you going to throw another hissy fit and brush aside the evidence of what ID really is?

Please refer to my statements above re: putting up. One of the biggest issues surrounding this controversy is the inability of the opposition to pick out scientific criticisms vs. philosophic criticisms. You seem to have this dilemma.



A non-religous supporter of IDism? Christ is that possible?

Obviously.


I ... I don't get it!

Of course not, it doesn't fit in with your world view.


OMFG WHY! HOW?!

It happened when I was in grad school (molecular biology). IMO, the preponderance of evidence re: origins, doesn't fit in with the accepted paradigm.


What kind of a crazy screwed up place is this?!!

It's the O&C at ATS, and it IS a crazy, screwed up place... no doubt about that. It's one of the few places on the internet where the same person can believe that humans are genetically engineered beings by aliens from Planet X, and that ID is bunk.


Where's the damn common sense in it all? How is it that my eyes needed to be designed as Behe suggest's or my blood clotting or my flagellum, but some non-religous entity can just .. ARGH!

Can just what... be honest about what they think 'evidence' is indicative of? Becuase that's all I've ever done. Sorry that it's painful for you. Don't worry though... I have absolute confidence that you will protect your worldview at all costs.


There's nothing in ID to debunk! Nor am I trying to.

Then what are you doing here, and why is your username based on ID?


That'd be pointless and pretty stupid.

Voila!


Showing ID for what it is, and what it was originally attended for is entirely different then "debunking".

Pretty tough to do when you're not even vaguely familiar with it.

In any case, apparently you need to brush up on your definitions... especially with respect to 'debunk.'

The definition of debunk: expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas, which is what you claim you are trying to do.


And then you went all crazy ... wtf... non religous supporter? You make my brain hurt.

Yeah... that's a common response. When you don't use something, a bout of sudden use tends to cause some soreness. Don't worry though... it will eventually pass, as long as you keep up the thinking up. With a little hard work, it's likely you could be thinking for periods as long as 5 minutes within a month - with no soreness! You'll have to keep pushing your limits though. Start slow. In these beginning stages, try thinking in little bits and spurts, gradually work yourself up to thinking for one minute, then two, etc. Pretty soon, you'll be able to follow along with practically any conversation... though you may still get that headache as your brain becomes accustomed to activity.

Good Luck!



[edit on 16-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
Well, George Allman was actually the first IIRC to coin the term Intelligent Design, although his usuage of the term is different from the modern usage. We can go back abit furthur in time however and find elements of IDism by Heraclitus, around 5th century B.C. Whereas Phillip Johnson is considered the "father" of the modern Intelligent Design movement. One of many quote's of interest is this.


Challenge for the veteran ATS members who haunt the O&C: can you find the 'tell' in the above quote that indicates this user may be Produkt/Prot0n?

Nice to see you back Produkt/Prot0n. It was pretty smart of you to wait a little bit prior to rejoining with a new username. You've got some 'tells' that are practically undeniable though. In any case... we can, and it looks like we have, picked up exactly where we've left off in the past. Perhaps you've bolstered your defenses this time, but based on your most recent posts it would appear that Prot0n is still the same ignorant fraud we've come to know and.... tolerate.... barely.

Hold on to your hats folks, with Produkt back on ATS, this thread is likely to degenerate to mudslinging and bogus, yet incredibly unoriginal claims, that "ID is creationism in disguise," and "IC has been debunked," along with the famous "who designed the designer." If we could only get Produkt to argue that "ID is not falsifiable," then the circle of ignorance will be complete. It's doubful that he'll use that though, as he's been stung before using that one.

Produkt/Prot0n is the ultimate argument against evolution


What are you hoping to break some record, and become ATS's most banned user?


[edit on 16-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   


Here's some news for you: References means refering to specific statement. The point is back up your assertion with the statement.


I refrenced a specific statement and we both admittingly know where this statement come's from. If you do not wish to read through the transcript then that is of your own problem. All I can do is requote it again just to hear you B and moan that you don't want to look it up and verify it. That is your own fault, take it like a man and stop whining like a little girl about not wanting to read or look it up.




Not that I agree that either of these two are the founders of the modern ID movement


It can't get much more clear then that. I mean, you can sit there and dismiss whatever you'd like as irrelevent regardless of what it means, but we can't change the fact that these people are considered the "fathers" of the modern movement and are known to have stated that ID is just repackaged creationism. Dismiss dismiss and dismiss some more. Gotta love IDer's. I bet you, Behe, and Dembski are all good friends with how easily you people like to dismiss crap.




Specifically, how does this statement demonstrate that ID is repackaged Creationism?


What? Wow, what was that about reading comphrehension?




that I'm better read on the issue of ID, and the issue of evolution than you are.


And you probably are better read on the topics. Why you'd hold such a blatant garbage topic as being true is beyond me. Again, poking at holes does not a science make.




scientific criticisms vs. philosophic criticisms.


So which are we discussing? A science or a philosophy?




Obviously.


IDK, probably just me ... I don't see how you can be a non-religous follower of IDism. The designer can't possibly be a natural entity like you or me. Our eyes, flagellum and blood clotting prove that.




IMO, the preponderance of evidence re: origins, doesn't fit in with the accepted paradigm.


And what exactly doesn't fit in when we don't exactly have all the answer's? You can't just snap your fingers and expect everything to fall into place at your command. The world doesn't work like that.




where the same person can believe that humans are genetically engineered beings by aliens from Planet X, and that ID is bunk.


Yea, I don't get those people either. Obviously if one is true then so is the other and since both are false ... Some people will just believe anything without any shred of evidence to back it up.




Can just what


Ok, it does not make any logical sense that we have certain "feature's" that IDer's think couldn't "evolve" on their own without some sort of intelligence behind them. Logically, if my blood clotting or eyes can't evolve naturally, then neither can an aliens. So that rule's out ANY natural entity being the intelligent entity in question. If the entity isn't natural, there is only one other option. A supernatural entity on par with GOD and whom every single major ID player I've seen believe's IS that entity. How is this NOT about religion?




Then what are you doing here, and why is your username based on ID?


Exactly what I said previously. Please cut the dismissals. I was pretty clear the first time.




Pretty tough to do when you're not even vaguely familiar with it.


What's really there to be familiar with? The founders of the modern movement admitting to it being a sham? Ermm... No evidence of any sort of design? Honestly ... there's nothing there but a bunch of bunch of people who believe in god saying god did it.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
I refrenced a specific statement and we both admittingly know where this statement come's from. If you do not wish to read through the transcript then that is of your own problem. All I can do is requote it again just to hear you B and moan that you don't want to look it up and verify it. That is your own fault, take it like a man and stop whining like a little girl about not wanting to read or look it up.

I've already read through it... likely more times than you have. I say this quote or reference doesn't exist.

You say it does. It's up to you to prove me wrong... I can't prove it doesn't exist without posting the whole thing here. You, on the other hand, can very easily prove this.

Otherwise this is just more Produkt fronting, and literature bluffing



It can't get much more clear then that. I mean, you can sit there and dismiss whatever you'd like as irrelevent regardless of what it means, but we can't change the fact that these people are considered the "fathers" of the modern movement and are known to have stated that ID is just repackaged creationism. Dismiss dismiss and dismiss some more. Gotta love IDer's. I bet you, Behe, and Dembski are all good friends with how easily you people like to dismiss crap.

Irrespective of who the fathers are... I doubt any of them admitted ID is repackaged creationism.

Come on tough guy, prove me wrong.



What? Wow, what was that about reading comphrehension?

That quote says nothing about Creationism. I does say something about God, but belief in God, a belief that a god created the universe DOES NOT equal Creationism

You've been around here long enough to know this, produkt.

You're just being lazy, or you know you can't back your assertions.... not sure which it is... I would imagine it's that you know what you're saying is false.



And you probably are better read on the topics. Why you'd hold such a blatant garbage topic as being true is beyond me. Again, poking at holes does not a science make.

Again, your utter misunderstanding about ID shines through very intensely here.

Produkt, go to Amazon.com and spend $5 on a used book. You might appear to actually understand this stuff then. Guess what? If you buy it from Amazon, you're not supporting "these frauds" by buying there books. You're supporting Amazon. I suggest you read a book. But I've suggested this before and you've not done it, why should now be any different.

Did you ever stop to consider the fact that a person with a Ph.D. in molecular bio, a person who has been reading origins stuff for the past 12 years or so, and a person who's worked as a professional scientist for about a decade, published in mainstream science journals, who feels the need to support ID under a pseudonym just might have a good reason for supporting the movement.

Of course you didn't. The only answer is that I must be some sort of fundamentalist Christian.

Way to have an open mind, produkt.




So which are we discussing? A science or a philosophy?

I am interested only in the scientific potential of the ID movement. The philosophical implications are irrelevant to me.



IDK, probably just me ... I don't see how you can be a non-religous follower of IDism.

Of course you don't. To understand that you'd have to have at least a rudimentary understanding of ID, and be reasonably well read in terms of origins theories.


The designer can't possibly be a natural entity like you or me. Our eyes, flagellum and blood clotting prove that.

Ummm... eyes, flagella, and blood clotting don't prove this, and no IDist says they do.

This is what I mean about not understanding the movement. The ID camp doesn't offer these as 'proof.'



And what exactly doesn't fit in when we don't exactly have all the answer's? You can't just snap your fingers and expect everything to fall into place at your command. The world doesn't work like that.

I don't expect it too. I can be more than patient in waiting for new scientific developments, as I have a first hand understanding of the difficulties, etc. in just getting experimental systems to work reliably, and an understanding of the vast amounts of work that are required to elucidate even a tiny detail about a complex biological system.

Furthermore, I stated the evidence doesn't fit with the accepted paradigm, you'll note I didn't say there is a lack of evidence for something. These are fundamentally different statements, and don't mean even close to the same thing.

Stop twisting my words around, please.

For the 1000th time, produkt, you'd do yourself a favor to read once in awhile. Expand your horizons and read something that challenges your beliefs for once. Don't seek out things that make you comfortable. There's no growth in that.




Yea, I don't get those people either. Obviously if one is true then so is the other and since both are false ... Some people will just believe anything without any shred of evidence to back it up.

Wow... you've really figured this origins stuff out, huh? I know I've mentioned this to you before, but I can probably get you a job. Leslie Orgel in particular needs some insightful people in his program, I know him personally. I can hook you up.




Ok, it does not make any logical sense that we have certain "feature's" that IDer's think couldn't "evolve" on their own without some sort of intelligence behind them. [snip] If the entity isn't natural, there is only one other option. A supernatural entity on par with GOD and whom every single major ID player I've seen believe's IS that entity. How is this NOT about religion?

Produkt, how thick is your skull casing? I'm inclined to believe it's as thick as my pit bull Oscar's. Oscar took a direct line drive to his head, and barely flinched. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer though.

How many times do I have to tell you this: ID isn't about the designer, it's about detecting the design.

Here's another newsflash for you: The ID movement recognizes the question of the designer can't be answered scientifically, so it ignores it. It does however recognize that we can support or deny a hypothesis of design. Thus that is the focus of the movement.



Exactly what I said previously. Please cut the dismissals. I was pretty clear the first time.

Oh gosh... my mistake. You DID mention this. I remember now. You're here to debunk a theory you don't understand on even a basic level.


What's really there to be familiar with?

You wouldn't know until cracked open a book. You know those things with lots of pages, and a cover. They do resemble those Disney books you're fond of... less pictures though. Is that the problem? Maybe I should email Behe and let him know that we need an illustrated guide to ID for people who are frightened by more than a paragraph or two on a page.


The founders of the modern movement admitting to it being a sham?

I'm calling BS on you again, produkt. Prove me wrong or continue to be recognized as the charlatan you are.


Ermm... No evidence of any sort of design? Honestly ... there's nothing there but a bunch of bunch of people who believe in god saying god did it.

And you know this how... certainly not because you've bothered to read any ID.

Produkt, everyone knows this is your perception of the situation... then again everyone at the O&C at ATS knows produkt is an ignorant charlatan.

I wonder if you realize the vast majority of applause I receive in these forums is from dispatching your completely bogus claims. Furthermore... it's just as likely to come from a mod opposed to ID as one who supports naturalistic origins theories. IOW, the people on your own 'team' can't stand you, and feel like you're actually doing the ID opposition a disservice.

Ironic isn't it.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join