Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof of ID the World is Looking For

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   
So many threads, so little originality. The same old obsolete arguments: warmed-over dinosaur tracks, polonium halos, stegosauri on Cambodian temple pillars, unevolved flagellae... it must be frustrating for the proponents of creationism to watch their best shots fall short, time after time after time.

To avoid further embarrassment, I propose a solution. A simple (and not very original) test any creationist or believer in intelligent design can apply to see whether his latest 'proof' of the workings of the Divine Hand actually is proof, or just another bit of wishful thinking.


The Way to Prove God Did It
What GDI* proponents need, if they're ever going to make any headway in this argument is something that goes like:

  1. The theory of evolution and speciation by natural selection, though widely accepted, has never been able satisfactorily to explain the following phenomenon...
  2. This is because... (scientifically valid argument here)
  3. Instead, we contend that the phenomenon can best be explained as the result of Divine Fiat, because... (another scientifically valid argument here).
  4. This can be tested by means of the following experiment... (Exhaustive description of experiment, including an explanation of how it addresses the problem. Note that the experiment will have to be ingeniously designed to eliminate all other explanations for the phenomenon apart from GDI).
  5. If our hypothesis is true -- and only if it is true -- the following results may be expected from the experiment.
  6. We ran the experiment. Here are the results. They tally well with our expectations (see #5 above).
  7. Therefore we conclude that GDI.
  8. We invite others to assess our arguments, repeat our experiment, and verify the results for themselves.

If creationists can come up with something like that, then they may expect to be taken seriously in science. So far, they're not even close. Nobody -- not one single individual among all the writhing, pullulating hordes of creationism -- ever has, so far.

There's probably a Nobel Prize it, too. So come on, creationists, give us your best shot.

Who wants to go first? And who wants to bet on their chances of success?
 

*God Did It

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Astyanax]




posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I'm too proud to bump my own threads.

Besides, the lack of response to this one sort of proves its point.

Then again... >bump



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I was eagerly waiting for some replies to this thread, but it seems you're right - spelling out exactly what ID proponents have to achieve before the hypothesis of ID is equal to the theory of evolution is a great way to show just how messed-up and infantile ID is.

Thanks for the thread



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   


Besides, the lack of response to this one sort of proves its point.

Most certainly.
I think it is safe to say that it will never be found. Most likely, though, we will get some more circular arguments un-cleverly disguised as "proof".



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by SlyCM
 


agreed

it's kind of silly when there are posters on this forum that actually have "Deny Darwin" in there avatar...yet they don't show up here to prove the alternative...

odd, eh?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I just found this thread and many of the other knowledgeable Creationists don't come here as much as they used to.
Some, I haven't seen AT ALL in almost two weeks!

My Dad had surgery yesterday afternoon and I'm off to see him.
I'll probably be back around 2:00 Eastern standard time.
Have a good day!



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 

My very good wishes to your father. I hope his recovery will be smooth and swift.

This thread will, I hope, still be here when you return. I'll look forward to reading what you have to say then.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Thank you Astyanax!
My Dad is doing Great, thank God!

I'm just now getting back to this thread.....

What is that you are referring to us as? Goddidit'rs??? Or Godiditists?
As opposed to evolutiondidit'rs, ists.?

Sounds dumb....

Anyway, addressing your criteria;
Here you go.
The best I could do, for now.


  1. The theory of evolution and speciation by natural selection, though widely accepted, has never been able satisfactorily to explain the following phenomenon...

    ** Irreducible Complexity
    BBC

    Even in the present, many organisms and parts of organisms do not appear to have evolved from lesser things. This is because they are 'irreducibly compex' lifeforms. Irreducible complexity is a concept that biochemistry professor Michael Behe developed in his book, Darwin's Black Box. If something is made of interacting parts that all work together, then it is referred to as irreducibly complex. Behe uses a mousetrap as his example. A mousetrap cannot be assembled through gradual improvement. You cannot start with a wooden base, catching a few mice, then add a hammer, and catch more, then add a spring, improving it further. To even begin catching mice one must assemble all the components completely with design and intent. Furthermore, if one of these parts changes or evolves independently, the entire thing will stop working. The mousetrap, for instance, will become useless if even one part malfunctions

    Another one;

    One of the largest discrepancies concerns aging or other features of organisms that act to restrict life span. Darwin's theory is largely based on "survival of the fittest". If an individual organism has a trait that allows it to survive longer and therefore breed more, its traits are more likely to be represented in descendents. If an individual has traits that limit its survival relative to other individuals, those traits tend to "select out" and be removed from the gene pool. It is therefore impossible, according to orthodox Darwinism, for an organism to evolve a trait that restricts or regulates survival without any compensating individually beneficial effect such as an increase in reproductive capacity. Nevertheless, most organisms display either aging or other less subtle mechanisms that act to regulate life span in a species specific and individually non-beneficial manner. This issue was raised by Darwin's contemporaries shortly after initial publication of The Origin of Species and remains an area of legitimate scientific disagreement 145 years later.

    Digital genetics and the theory of evolution
    Don't forget this fact;

    As an example, if the theory of evolution were true, then the fossil records would ALWAYS show a smooth transition from one life form to another, such that it would be difficult to tell where invertebrates ended, and vertebrates began. Though this is NOT always the case. Instead, fully formed life forms have been discovered to suddenly jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere, with illogical gaps before them where their ancestors should be. Many evolutionists do not dispute this fact, while others look the other way.

    overcomeproblems.com


  2. This is because... (scientifically valid argument here)

    ***God created the Heavens and the Earth.

  3. Instead, we contend that the phenomenon can best be explained as the result of Divine Fiat, because... (another scientifically valid argument here).

    ***they reflect an explosion of life at one point in history.

  4. This can be tested by means of the following experiment... (Exhaustive description of experiment, including an explanation of how it addresses the problem. Note that the experiment will have to be ingeniously designed to eliminate all other explanations for the phenomenon apart from GDI).



    *** Examining the Earth's strata for a pattern of lack of transitionals and geological column disorders.(out of order according to the 'accepted' data.)

  5. If our hypothesis is true -- and only if it is true -- the following results may be expected from the experiment.

    *** Most creatures were produced WHOLE, without small increments of change and time.
    A great Flood would have buried life according to their environment. Lower orders of plants, snails and mollusks at the bottom, followed by bottom-dwelling creatures, and so on, until we come to mammals and land creatures, then humans.
    Genetic mutations almost ALWAYS produce undesireable changes.


    ***
  6. We ran the experiment. Here are the results. They tally well with our expectations (see #5 above).


    *** Give me the monies I would need as well as a full-time babysitter and we'll see.

  7. Therefore we conclude that GDI.
  8. We invite others to assess our arguments, repeat our experiment, and verify the results for themselves.

    *** YES! Please. If anyone reading this has geological, anthropological OR any other necessary experience and is independantly wealthy, has time and travels well, Take some time and do this!


If creationists can come up with something like that, then they may expect to be taken seriously in science. So far, they're not even close. Nobody -- not one single individual among all the writhing, pullulating hordes of creationism -- ever has, so far.

*** Come on! It pays EXTREMELY low wages, (if any.)




posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax


The Way to Prove God Did It

  1. The theory of evolution and speciation by natural selection, though widely accepted, has never been able satisfactorily to explain the following phenomenon...

um.......life itself!!!! as in, what exactly did life evolve from?


  • This is because... (scientifically valid argument here)
  • according to the second law of thermodynamics ''the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.'' wiki

    earth is an isolated system, suspended in a vacuum, the second law of thermodynamics states that in these circumstances it is the tendency of nature to become less complex and more random until an equilibrium is achieved.


  • Instead, we contend that the phenomenon can best be explained as the result of Divine Fiat, because... (another scientifically valid argument here).

  • in order for this system to produce a result by which both complexity was increased and randomness was suppressed an outside intervention or influence is required.


  • This can be tested by means of the following experiment... (Exhaustive description of experiment, including an explanation of how it addresses the problem. Note that the experiment will have to be ingeniously designed to eliminate all other explanations for the phenomenon apart from GDI).

  • an experiment designed in order to assess the likelyhood of a complex system initiating spontaneously in an enclosed system. as a control the same system will be initiated with outside intervention.

    take two clocks, disassemble them, place one in a jar, seal the lid, await spontaneous reassembly, take the other clock to a clockmaker (allow outside intervention), wait for reassembly for advised period of time.

    given the relative lack of complexity of a clock compared to a cell, this should be seen as a eminently fair comparison, if not biased in favour of evolutionists.


  • If our hypothesis is true -- and only if it is true -- the following results may be expected from the experiment.

  • while the clock in the jar increases in entropy as the constituent parts slowly oxidize over time the clock that has been given to the clockmaker should be repaired and working better than ever within a couple of weeks.


  • We ran the experiment. Here are the results. They tally well with our expectations (see #5 above).
  • Therefore we conclude that GDI.
  • We invite others to assess our arguments, repeat our experiment, and verify the results for themselves.

  • okay, i admit i haven't tried this experiment, i think someone else might have, but not me,however, if any of you disagree with my expected results, i will. i'm so confident i will even allow anyone here to specify any period of time for me to leave the clock in its jar, i will even allow anyone here to pick the clockmaker that i present the other clock to. i certainly encourage anyone who wishes to try this for themselves.


    i'm not even a creationist or an id'er by the way, but i know for a fact that science contradicts itself as often as christianity with-in fields, and far more so across fields. i'm sick of seeing pseudo-intellectual evolutionists, who just don't have a deep enough understanding of it to realise the contradictions, try to bash people who subscribe to a different theory.

    evolution is just another theory. it's full of holes, it doesn't explain everything.
    there isn't a complete fossil record for any, i repeat, any, animal on earth or any, and i mean any, animal that has ever been on earth.

    if anyone is so sure of evolution, as a theory, that they can provide a better and more complete experiment than the one i have outlined above to proove evolution, i will transfer one hundred dollars to them via pay-pal. seriously.


    [edit on 25-4-2008 by pieman]



    posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:48 PM
    link   
    In response to Clearskies,

    The Irreducible Complexity argument was shown to be a fallacy in a court of law during the trial Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education. The ID argument that a mousetrap will not function if one of the parts is removed was smacked down by the scientists during rebuttal arguments. The scientists removed a key component of the mousetrap rendering it useless...as a mousetrap! But it worked fine as a tie-holder when the scientist took the stand with the mousetrap on his chest holding his tie in place. Classic! It basically showed that just because something is reduced doesn't mean it can't serve another function previously unthought of. This process was then shown with flagella from bacteria/virus (I honestly don't remember which it was). Some bacteria/virus use their flagella for movement, while others have a non-moving flagella (ie. reduced complexity) which works great as a needle. This needle can then be used to attack cells and insert the bad stuff into the cell.

    Nova ran a special on this trial and can be checked out on their website.

    Nova



    posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:53 PM
    link   
    Pieman,

    You said "earth is an isolated system, suspended in a vacuum, the second law of thermodynamics states that in these circumstances it is the tendency of nature to become less complex and more random until an equilibrium is achieved. "

    How is Earth an isolated system when it is bombarded daily by thousands of pieces of stuff from outer space?



    posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:48 PM
    link   
    the mass of ''stuff'' is insignificant in comparison to the mass of the earth. the ''stuff'' almost always burns off and vaporises in the atmosphere. the ''stuff'' is insignificant.

    besides which, if life was seeded here it still had to come from somewhere, so the ''stuff'' is also irrelevant. thermodynamics still says that life goes against the nature of the universe.



    posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 11:30 PM
    link   
    No your requirements only speak to the limitations of scientific inquiry not the worthiness of ID as truth. As I pointed out in the "Expelled" thread...



    I think that is really the crux of the whole issue. The Atheistic scientists are whining about ID not meeting the requirements of formal "science". The scientific method is just a method, it seems likely that it is inadequate for the determination of origins. Are we searching for science or truth?


    You want science... we want truth. They are not the same thing.

    [edit on 4/25/2008 by Bigwhammy]



    posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 01:50 AM
    link   
    Funny, I always thought science was the search for the truth.



    posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:08 AM
    link   



    posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:35 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by pieman
    the mass of ''stuff'' is insignificant in comparison to the mass of the earth. the ''stuff'' almost always burns off and vaporises in the atmosphere. the ''stuff'' is insignificant.

    besides which, if life was seeded here it still had to come from somewhere, so the ''stuff'' is also irrelevant. thermodynamics still says that life goes against the nature of the universe.


    I guess I'll refer to that same Wiki article at this point.

    Wiki


    The second law of thermodynamics has been proven mathematically for thermodynamic systems, where entropy is defined in terms of heat divided by the absolute temperature. The second law is often applied to other situations, such as the complexity of life, or orderliness.[6] In sciences such as biology and biochemistry the application of thermodynamics is well-established, e.g. biological thermodynamics. The general viewpoint on this subject is summarized well by biological thermodynamicist Donald Haynie; as he states: "Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics."[7] This is very different, however, from the claim made by many creationists that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, evidence indicates that biological systems and obviously the evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net increase in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution.[8]



    It is occasionally claimed that the second law is incompatible with autonomous self-organisation, or even the coming into existence of complex systems. This is a common creationist argument against evolution.[9] The entry self-organisation explains how this claim is a misconception. In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the second law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshold. Complex structures, such as Bénard cells, also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink.



    posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 01:28 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Evil Genius
    Funny, I always thought science was the search for the truth.


    But the search for a thing is not the thing, but a process of finding it. It is quite possible you are so in love with the method (science) you lose sight of the goal (truth). I think that's what IDers are getting at...



    posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:45 PM
    link   
    Kudos to Clearskies for leading with the ID movement's best shot so far, 'irreducible complexity'. People have already dealt with that, so I won't go into it again. Pieman's appeal to the Second Law of Thermodynamics has also been answered.

    Bigwhammy, disdaining to play by the opposition's rules, offers an Argument from Unreason. I certainly don't propose to answer it. There are other threads for that sort of debate.

    So far, none of the responses (as I'm sure any fair-minded observer would agree) comes close to providing experimental, falsifiable evidence for intelligent design.

    I begin to despair. Will we never see any evidence for ID, then?



    posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:11 PM
    link   
    ...in our search for origins we may one day conclude that there are no origins in the sense of a "beginning". We may trace events back to a "big bang" and even further back to a "singularity"...but thats where our current knowledge and imagination stops.

    "What was before that?" This is something the ants on the ant-hill with their their little experiments and "proof" cant answer (yet).

    The reason for this may be solved by physics rather than biology and astronomy.

    It could be that we discover how linear time in the sense of their being a "beginning" is nothing more than an illusion we have accepted. And where there is no "beginning" and no "end" the question of "origins" becomes obsolete and life is experienced with even more mystery and awe.

    [edit on 26-4-2008 by Skyfloating]



    posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:20 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Skyfloating
     



    but thats where our current knowledge and imagination stops.

    Not if you exercise that part of your thought. In my opinion.
    I think that might be what mystics have been doing in meditation for thousands of years.
    Perhaps the key to understanding lays within rather than what is outside the mind.

    as buddha giggles to himself, what is there to prove that is not already known?"

    Just curious, what do people expect to do with absolute knowledge? Will figuring it all out, endow one with wisdom as well?



    [edit on 4/26/2008 by psychedeliack]





    new topics

    top topics



     
    12
    <<   2  3  4 >>

    log in

    join