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.

 

So the proof for intelligent design is?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I was watching a tv program the bbc a while ago called horizon.

It was basically the story of intetigent design in the us. First they said that a mechanism of a mirobe oculdnt have evoleved becasue there was no way multiple organs could have come otgether in order to form this arm/tenticle thing. But then it was prioved it would work without 80% of its design so that went out of the window.

Then they said that the chance of evoultion creating what we have on Earth now was tiny without any 'help.' Well I know it sounds all good but watch this for absolute magic-
AGSCJSKHSJDSKDHSKDNSKDNSJKDBNSKDFHDICNSKDBSDBSDDTS-
Now the chance of this sequence being what it is at random is 1 in 5.606184657 to the power of 70 but wait it is still there right in front of you.
So caculating evolution backwords is just well really stupid.

So now im just asking what actually is the proof of intelligent design??




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
There isn't any proof of intelligent design. It's just another way for people who are shaky in their faith to try and convince themselves that there's a big grandpa in the sky who will take care of them while they live and when they die, rather than face the fact that life is an ongoing horror ruled by chance and chaos, and that their personal wonderfulness will be gone forever when they kick the bucket.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Enkidu]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I'm not a proponent of Intelligent design. However I do have a problem or two with your premise support, as you said:
"AGSCJSKHSJDSKDHSKDNSKDNSJKDBNSKDFHDICNSKDBSDBSDDTS-
Now the chance of this sequence being what it is at random is 1 in 5.606184657 to the power of 70"
First: True enough, the problem is that any given combination is possible once.
However, with the human genome there are 20 available amino acids the fit approximately 130 "slots" on the gene. Thats 10 to the power of 170, for every permutation. But you have to calculate them as a whole, working, unified system. That takes it to (too lazy to do the math) a really big number, I think....
Second: Wasn't your sequence itself a construct of intelligent design (either directly or indirectly)?
Doesn't mean it can't happen, just verrrrrrrrryyyyyy unlikely.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
My thoughts exactly...well, sort of.

I don't expect PROOF of ID. However, I do expect EVIDENCE. And, of course, there is none.

These ID people have nothing to stand on, so they think they're right by attacking evolution. What these clowns don't realize is that evolution acknowledges the problems itself.

I am still waiting for an experiment to provide even a shred of evidence for ID. All I have seen is IC, which doesn't even hold up in most cases.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Much as i'm sure i'll regret getting involved in this "discussion" - here goes.


Originally posted by Shenroon
It was basically the story of intetigent design in the us. First they said that a mechanism of a mirobe oculdnt have evoleved becasue there was no way multiple organs could have come otgether in order to form this arm/tenticle thing. But then it was prioved it would work without 80% of its design so that went out of the window.


Did you want to put up a source or something? Granted your description was stellar (ie "multible organs.... arm/tenticle thing... 80%... out the window") but i'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes. Appreciate the learnin'.



Then they said that the chance of evoultion creating what we have on Earth now was tiny without any 'help.' Well I know it sounds all good but watch this for absolute magic-
AGSCJSKHSJDSKDHSKDNSKDNSJKDBNSKDFHDICNSKDBSDBSDDTS-
Now the chance of this sequence being what it is at random is 1 in 5.606184657 to the power of 70 but wait it is still there right in front of you.
So caculating evolution backwords is just well really stupid.



Um.... huh?
Is this where you're going? (I would recommend you read this page in full)


www.leaderu.com...
Some systems are so highly specified that they seem to tolerate no change at all. The bacterial flagellum, a motor that bacteria use to propel themselves, is made up of about 20 different proteins. Another 20 proteins are needed to build it. If you knock out any of these 40 proteins, the flagellum doesn't work. The flagellum thus seems to display not only specified complexity, but irreducible complexity.

More fascinating is a study reported in the journal Science. A team of researchers wanted to discover how many genes were necessary for the simplest organism to survive and reproduce. If you think of an organism's genes as its parts list, the scientists wanted to know how small they could make the parts list and still have a living, reproducing organism.

They did this, in part, by tinkering with a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium, which is the simplest known organism. The organism's genetic code is about 580,000 letters long and spells out 480 protein-producing genes plus 37 "species" of RNA. After "knocking out" various protein-coding genes, the scientists have estimated that 265 to 350 of this bacterium's genes are "essential" for the organism to live and reproduce under laboratory conditions--an extremely favorable environment.

Is this a designed system? It's beginning to look that way. But the main point is that specified complexity gives us a standard to guide our research.


Or was this what you were alluding too?

www.reasons.org...

Biophysicist Hubert Yockey has calculated the probability of forming a single gene product (one that is functionally equivalent to the ubiquitous protein cyctochrome C) as one chance in 1075. 56 Given this probability, Yockey calculated that if the hypothetical primordial soup contained about 1044 amino acids, a hundred billion trillion years would yield a 95% chance for random formation of a functional protein only 110 amino acids in length (a single gene product).57 The universe is about 15 billion years old. This means that less than one trillionth of the time has passed that would be needed to make even one of the 250-350 gene products necessary for minimal life, or one of the 1500 gene products necessary for independent life.

Further complicating the supra-astronomical probabilities that must be overcome for even the simplest life to arise by natural processes is the changing view of bacteria. No longer regarded as cells with a random, nondescript internal structure, bacteria are now recognized as having remarkable internal organization, both spatially and temporally, at the protein level.58, 59 This internal organization of bacterial cells is universal and is needed for their survival. This means that origin-of-life researchers must account for not only the simultaneous appearance of 250-350 gene products but also their organization inside the cell.


Your proof to the contrary? I'm sure these components/systems evolved in a 'step-wise' fashion, we don't need any evidence or anything... your uber informed word is good enough for me. 'Course they say there's lies, damn lies, and statistics... guess and then there's the "odds of something happening", eh comrades.




So now im just asking what actually is the proof of intelligent design??


Good luck finding "proof" on any origins theory... BTW did you want to post your overwhelming proof of undirected origins? I assume based on the way you talk down to people who believe differently than you do that you have something up your sleeve... right? But here's some more evidence for you to consider...

The Positive Case For Design (.pdf) (not very long... atleast read 1 thing from the ID community)


Many critics of intelligent design have argued that design is merely a negative argument against evolution. This could not be further from the truth. Leading design theorist William Dembski has observed that “[t]he principle characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice.”1

By observing the sorts of choices that intelligent agents commonly make when designing systems, a positive case for intelligent design is easily constructed by elucidating predictable, reliable indicators of design.

Design can be inferred using the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion. Design theorists begin with observations of how intelligent agents act when designing, to help them
recognize and detect design in the natural world:

...snip...

These observations can then be converted into predictions about what we should find if an object was designed. This makes intelligent design a scientific theory capable of generating testable predictions:

Table 2. Predictions of Design7 (Hypothesis):

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a
specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).

(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and
without similar precursors.

(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in
different and unrelated organisms.

(4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.




Originally posted by Enkidu
There isn't any proof of intelligent design. It's just another way for people who are shaky in their faith to try and convince themselves that there's a big grandpa in the sky who will take care of them while they live and when they die, rather than face the fact that life is an ongoing horror ruled by chance and chaos, and that their personal wonderfulness will be gone forever when they kick the bucket.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Enkidu]


Any proof/evidence to back up your opinion? Just out of curiosity how do the agnostic members of the ID movement fit into your little 'those of weak faith" theory? Of course your beliefs are legitimate while everybody else is just fooling themselves. Forget the fact that some of the greatest minds in history we're convinced of the "big grandpa in the sky." BTW... the identity of the designer (whether supernatural or not) has nothing to do with the design inference. That would be philosophy and theology, of course that probably contradicts your pop culture version of design theory and would require you to actually look at something written by a design theorist... but atleast you sound clever.


You guys get alot of headaches being so smart? Must be hard to defend the gates of scientific knowledge and keep us morons out at all hours of the day. Anything i can do to help out, just let me know.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Table 2. Predictions of Design7 (Hypothesis):

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a
specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).

(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and
without similar precursors.

(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in
different and unrelated organisms.

(4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Evolution or design? Could we please see a more elaborated theory there that says complex structure's can't evolve nor happen by chance. Last time I checked intricate pattern's happen naturally all the time in nature.

2) C'mon now, that's just silly. Say we did find that one rare specimen, does that really indicate there wasn't any precursors for that creature?

3) Not sure what that mean's ... if it's talking about say ... a heart being used in a human and a bird and a worm... well then gee.. proof positive right there huh? I mean, that's obviously not evolution at all right?

4) "In molecular biology, "junk" DNA is a collective label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has yet been identified." In other word's, of course we might discover that some of the "junk dna" has function's! Our not knowing what they are yet doesn't necessarily imply a designer at all.


What would be rather interesting is prediction's and theories from the IDT circle of friends showing how the universe and life CAN NOT happen naturally and REQUIRE a designer. Not all this silly let's attack what they don't know yet prediction's.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Come on, where is the evidence?


Now we who support evolution are forced to do what the ID people do; attack their ideas. So, let's play...

There's an orchid (possibly more) that mimics the female sex of a certain wasp. The males of this wasp species comes along, sees the flower part that looks like a nice female, and proceeds to do the do with the flower part. During the act, he gets pollen on his body, including on his fun parts. Thus, the orchid tricks the wasp into sexing it so that it inadvertently pollinates the orchid.

What kinda designer designs plants that fool wasps into sexing them? Is this some kind of perverted designer?


OK, have another one. The human eye, as with other vertebrate eyes, is supposed to be too complex to have evolved. See, it's so complex, that not only is its retina "installed" backwards and susceptible to detachment, but it has a blind spot. If that isn't bad enough, compare a human eye to a squid eye. Funny that the squid eye was "designed" in a way that it is not susceptible to detachment like the human eye and lacks a blind spot.

What kind of designer is at work here? The designer makes a human eye with these kind of flaws, yet gets these flaws right in a squid? Why didn't the designer get it right both times?


[edit on 23-2-2006 by truthseeka]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
O.K Rren I seem to have given you the impression I'm a christian, well no I'm not.
You also say that many of the greatest minds in history believed in a big man in the sky when could you also remember that most of them believed the book of physiology written by Galen (or HIppocrates always get confused) which says there are minute holes form one side of the heart to the other that allow for the blood to flow thorugh. So does that mean that they are right.
And lasty I cant find this evidence but if you are a brit and you watched horizon then you would see this proof. I admit this makes me sound a bit bogus and you can believe thta if you want unless someone wants to post the proof (now im gonna get called lazy as well.)



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   


What kind of designer is at work here? The designer makes a human eye with these kind of flaws, yet gets these flaws right in a squid? Why didn't the designer get it right both times?


I got a theory! I got a theory! oOoOoO PICK ME!

Because we were created in god's image, so that mean's god HAS FLAWS!?!?!


What'd I win? I want that damn porche!



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I think Christians should let this fight over intelligent design drop. It doesn't accomplish anything other than detract from what we are supposed to do. It alienates thinking people from Christ by convincing them all Christians must accept whatever their preacher tells them. Preachers are not well equipped to argue science, especially if they haven't even attended a seminary. Seminary should have at least taught them about the past and the whole flat earth, sun goes around the earth thing.

I remember going to a church when I was young to see some guy who said that the earth was 4000 years old and that if you don't believe this you are not believing the Bible. Oh, also he said there were still dinosaurs on the earth. I went to college, learned to think critically, read a lot about religion, Church history and now I know that Christians don't have to cover their eyes to keep their faith. Like galileo I can't help what my eyes see.

So, I think we should let the scientists tell us how things came about and trust in our hearts that God is the one who wrote the "rules" about determining how evolution takes place. I also remember something about how matter is neither created or destroyed in a closed system so I guess someone outside the system had to create the system.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by arius
So, I think we should let the scientists tell us how things came about and trust in our hearts that God is the one who wrote the "rules" about determining how evolution takes place. I also remember something about how matter is neither created or destroyed in a closed system so I guess someone outside the system had to create the system.


I'm not a Christian, but I do believe in God. And this quote is exactly how I feel it is -- that God wrote these 'rules' into the system. And I believe God would want us humans to use our intelligence to figure out how it (the system) works, else why would he give us intelligence?




top topics



 
0

log in

join