Proof of ID the World is Looking For

Does this statement mean anything? Could you please explain what you think it means?

Absolutely. If you can falsify a hypothesis it means that you can climb up the ladder of synthesis - antithesis and then to synthesis (understanding). You can then make a modified hypothesis until you arrive at a truth.
For most scientists, there is not a great deal of incontrovertible truth. There is always a degree of uncertainty, of question marks throughout their research. However, I don't want to discuss the philosophy of Science here. I just wanted to state that flaws or weaknesses in evolutionary theory should be recognised. Not only that but it is valid Science to criticise the theory and unpick its weaknesses. Evolution is not a Universal Law (yet).


Absolutely. And there are plenty of threads in which to do so. This thread exists to allow those who think they can come up with an experimental procedure to provide falsifiable evidence for intelligent design to post an outline of such procedure.

Well, Heronumber0, do you have any to post?

If you don't -- as I suspect is the case -- but you just want to discuss philosophy of science, well, I'll make an exception for you. In fact, I'll let you launch the first broadside. Fire away, my friend.

reply to post by Heronumber0

---

Exactly, and what I find so interesting is that Asty would want to discuss this NOW after the thread is pretty much exhausted than when I wanted to before it got underway.

This is also why one quick look at the post I had made about Dawkins trying to explain macro-evolution could not be re-explained any better and no one has even tried after they read my comments and if they were honest about it, they would have to admit to the same defeat that Dawkins explanation assumes the consequent and it is undeniable.

Yet you won't find "honest asty" checking Dick Dawkins for that much less admit it. That day that he was stumped as popular as it is among creationists misses the point by both evolutionists AND creationists.

Neither one "gets it" .

It isn't so much that he gets stumped albeit the explantion he gives for being angry for getting "setup" by Christians sounds like a lot more sour grapes, it is his explanation after having time to think it over that is most compelling. It his explanation that convicted him, NOT that he was stumped but that even with more time to think it over he not only didn't answer the question but the one he assumes WAS asked, which apparently is our confusion of the way speciation by natural selection works, fails this test given here also. If the question was given in a court of law and posed as a yes or no as it most certainly is a yes or no question he would have been NAILED no doubt about it.

Since the question was framed in such a way, I believe the struggle he was having was that he discovered his answer was no before he articulated it THEN realizing this is why he got stumped.

Call for speculation?

Yes, so Ill withdraw the suggestion as any attorney would but like the jury that still heard it, the idea I may be absolutley right about that, has already crossed your mind has it not?

You betcha it has and is WHY the question would be posed as a yes or no and why an attorney would INSIST it be answered yes or no and Dawkins ONLY answer, if he knows an iota about DNA is NO.

So what he did was buy time and bluster.

It is my opinion, the comments that support or critisize Dawkins video miss the point by not drawing attention to what is the most OBVIOUS problem of all.

Not that he got stumped on a question about DNA,,

but the entire theory

gets stumped

- Con








[edit on 21-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

Ostensibly, yes, that seem to be exactly what I am doing as I have posted the link to download the official congressional report at least a dozen times now Dave.

It isn't my fault you refuse to read it,

much less admit it.

- Con

reply to post by Conspiriology

---

Interesting thoughts, Con. You bring up a good point. You briefly mentioned it in an email before but I hope you don't mind if I take the time to ask you to expound upon it here. You never explained it to me in full. What was your theory about the video concerning Dawkins and something about his life being changed?

Thanks.

reply to post by AshleyD

---

Well there is a lot of speculation about that day in question ashley.
I would love to have your assistance along with whammy who has already provided some evidence that what you are seeing in that video, is not just a man stumped on a question, but one convicted by the question and has haunted him since the day that it was asked and the video made.

If you notice, taking into consideration the postulate I have posted about the way that question was asked as a yes or no, it makes more sense that he was upset that it was framed in that way and not because he was being asked by Christians. That I cannot believe as I have met Dawkins talked to him briefly at Grady Gammage auditorium Arizona State University where he autographed his Book the God Delusion for me.

He is an affable charming man, very unassuming and quite easily approachable. I cannot believe however that was the reason he broke from that video and as much as he might say he was asked that question before, the evidence proves he wasn't.

That was a very long well thought out strategy where the question regarding an increase in the genome was not long before postulated at the time. He was put on the spot so to speak by a question that dropped em head on and one he never really thought about before as that is EXACTLY what facial non verbal communications scientists have concluded examining that video.

What happened to Richard after that was quite interesting.

He actually started to search for other explanations and is on sort of a quest and I believe has been quite confused about everything he has always believed in. Whammy has already told me Dawkins has been suggesting alternative origins and has been distancing himself from his typical Darwinian Natural Selection. I mean what if one day the CIA came to you and told you everything you have always thought about America, about Justice and Government WAS WRONG.

Well their is much to trace about this I am going to be researching but I think you have seen the look on his face before on others and it is NOT "Oh MY I have just been setup by the damn fundies" His reaction first and foremost was to the QUESTION and naturally so.

Who perpetrated this and the write up that came way too long after was at the behest of his PR people. Richard was completely and utterly hit by a train that day and has acted weird ever since even his lecturtes have taken on an almost insane kind of confusion where the things he says are so way out there you would think he was L-Ron Hubbard.

He is a man in limbo

This guy was hit with a question by a Christian who was given the question to ask by a Scientist who had no idea it would have been brought up like that to Richard Dawkins. It was not the 7th grade level biology question they claim he has answered so many times before, in fact you won't find him ever answering that question before that video and to this day he has not answered it to the satisfaction of anyone in science that hasn't found guargantuion holes in it.

I think the lord is messing with that man and according to what Ive been reading,, he is at a real crossroads in his life.

I pray that he chooses the right path

and not the left or wrong one

God Bless Richard

and guide him

Amen

- Con








[edit on 21-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Heronumber0

---

Thank you for the clarification, Heronumber0. I understand now what you were trying to say the first time round; I'm afraid the words in which you chose to couch the statement were not clear to me. I certainly don't disagree with what you say about falsifiablity; indeed, it forms part of the substance of the thread. It is precisely falsifiable evidence for ID that I am asking for.

This being the case, I am sure you will agree that


is nothing more than an attempt to attribute a cause for which there is no evidence to an effect for which there is plenty. Thus:


You are stating that the reason why the physical constants have the values they have is that God made them that way.

Which, of course, is an untenable statment. True, if the physical constants had different values, we would not, as you say, exist, and probably neither would the universe. But they do have those values, and we do exist. So what? You're stating that just because we exist, there must exist a God that made us?

That's awful piffle, you know.

Either that or we are so damn lucky that dumb luck is the understatement of all time, especially when you consider the great aggregation of the many mathematical settings for the planet where if they were a hair off, we would not be here.

Yeah YOU got it, that is exactly what it suggests as I any odds maker in Vegas would bet that it is far far more likely these exact variance, measurements, speeds and many other next to impossible odds, all coming together at just the right time at just the right place, at just the right angle, just the right distance, etc etc etc.. was done by someone or something that KNEW what they were doing to make life possible at all.

That isn't piffle astyanax,

it's just common sense

and a good bet

you lose

- Con



[edit on 23-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

The impossible odds against human life - and the miraculousness if it all falling together by the fantasy of a Darwinian "accident" is what convinced famous atheist Professor Antony Garrard Newton Flew to renounce his atheist religion in favor of God.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

---

well, the whole "impossible odds" argument really falls on its posterior when you realize exactly how many chances are being taken every single nanosecond in the universe

a universe that's about 13 billion lightyears across and has a trillion trillion trillion stars (or whatever ridiculous number it really is) and you've had about 13 billion years for something to happen...

the odds aren't so bad because of how many times the odds are taken.

toss a coin enough times and it'll land on the edge

and stop trying to provoke people by saying atheism is a religion, it is not a religion, you have been shown that your labeling of it as a religion is wrong (on multiple occasions), and you continue to repeat this lie in an effort to provoke atheist posters
please, stop spreading the ignorance.

The assumption that DNA is an intelligently designed code does not stand up to logic.

There are a lot of systems in nature the “self assemble.”

Including nucleic acids!

Pour a whole mess-o-sugar in boiling water. Pour that water, super saturated with sugar, into a cup. Put a string in the cup-o-water. What happens? Sugar crystals form on the string. This happens through a naturally occurring process of self assembly. This process certainly can not be touted of “proof” of intelligent design.

Amino Acids have been detected in inner stellar gas clouds, and embedded in meteorites. Amino Acids appear to be formed by naturally occurring processes through out the universe.

Amino Acids can be shown to self assemble on earth. What reason would we have to believe Amino Acids populating inner stellar gas clouds COULD NOT self assemble into precursors of DNA?

The fact that life as we know it has DNA at its root CAN NOT be construed as proof that DNA is an intelligently designed code.

You seem to think the more if it doesn't make it 1 out of a 100 times it will 1 out of a thousand and if it doesn't then it will 1 out of a million or biliion like it gets more likely it will happen then. Problem is, probability DOESN'T WORK like that madnesss.

In fact it gets less likely to happen not more likely

Okay?

Thx




Provoke my butt madnessss. If you knew anything about your precious faith in your Godless theology of Atheism maybe you woudn't say such things accusing people of spreading ignorance when yours is gleaming like a sun beam. You need to get educated on Atheism if you are going to preach what it is or isn't and nothing is worse than an Atheist bearing False Witness and I am afraid that is just what you are doing.

Atheist has the word "theist" in it, the "A" only means it is a theism without a deity otherwise you would be a non-theist or Anti theist. A-symetric still has symetry it is just not balanced. A-sexual still has sex just not with anyone else, A-theist is a religion just not one with a God. Theist means someone who believes in God. Atheist is someone who doesn't. That is what Theology does it studies religons and classifies them accordingly. Monotheism Polythesim Pantheism, and your theist extraction would be Atheism.

Got it?

No???

Ok well what about Church? Religions have what is called "Churchs" do they NOT? Yessss, yes, yes, of course they do!

Now one would expect Atheism not to have a Church if Atheism was NOT a religion correct? Good Madnesss, splendid you are catching on real fast. Okay now lets see what we have in the way of proof, is there any evidence that would indicate such a phenomena as an Atheist Church.

Ready??



Uh OHHHH

Tsk tsk tsk and did you see how many to look over?

Still Not Convinced?

Well, you like to site the legal rulings on stuff like separation of church and state so,, I was wondering, you being such a respector of the rule of law insisting us "fundies" do too, so maybe you would respect the legal rulings that require Atheists to get their doctrine of evolution out of our public Schools mmmm? Yes it seems the your churchs topics are all about two things. Hating us so much it seems that is all they have to talk about then the other topic would be of course NOT science but evolution. Seems the connection to that has grabbed the attention of the courts too.



So stop telling people they are spreading ignorance Madnesss when it is you who is ignorant about your own religion. It is dishonest and you know it. You had known about this because I had to show you the 7th Circuit courts ruling too on past occasions but apparently you only like Court rulings when they suit you. Remember always, our laws are modeled after the Christian Religion so lets remember that next time they want to vote the ten commandments out of our court rooms okay.



- Con

You ever see a code that wasn't?

YouTube Link

image source: http://www.seekfind.net//Animations/The_Professor_and_the_Rock.gif


Evolution = Doctrine of Atheism = Religion

- Con





[edit on 26-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

geocities.com...

you guys should all look at this websie this is the first scientific proof of god

reply to post by iesus_freak

---

Thank you for your contribution, iesus freak.

Did you read the OP? It sets up the conditions for a scientifically rigorous proof of intelligent design. I was unable to see how the theory you posted a link to qualifies, but maybe I'm just not getting it. Would you like to explain?

Thank you very kindly indeed.

How is it that we are able to test and support if something WAS NOT created in its present form, but we aren't able to test and support the theory that it WAS created in its present form?


and you say evolution is science, yet, creation science isn't??

ha ha if only you atheists would subject your silly Darwinist theory to the same standards and scrutiny.

Oh before anyone answers, I mean the kind where you don't buy fraudulent feathered dino transitional fossil or fill every gap with the word "time". Or I tell ya what,, since the holes in evolution are always filled with "given enough time, "time" being the magic word, than we allow the word "Magic" ! Hell they serve the same purpose. Since it has been discovered that no one actually looks for errors in Darwinists papers for peer review and that they look more for a good story, we should allow all the latitude for lies and decpeption Darwinists have employed for hundreds of years,

I don't even know why they call it Science anymore.


it's more like Dogmalution, one good thing though. After some speakers for ID came to ASU and gave a presentation there, ha ha two weeks later the students still refer to their Biology class as,,

"bunkT"

LOL

- Con

Did Conspiriology seriously just attempt to prove that atheism is a religion and has churches by doing a Google search?

If he can do that then I guess I can do this:



Intelligent Design is officially stupid, according to Conspiriology's Google logic.

By the way, Conspiriology, most of those websites, save the first couple, are just websites that feature the word "atheism" and "church", do you even know how a search engine works?

Also, the first couple of websites involving the Church of Atheism appears to be a joke website allowing people to sign up to be ordained "atheist priests", and most of the other websites are either atheists laughing at the idea of atheists having a church, religious people talking about atheism and churches, or religious people thinking atheism is a religion.

Nice try, though.

The difference between MY search and yours is this,, those saying intelligent design are "Opinions" by jealous Atheists who hate intelligence and in so doing lack it themselves.

My search is NOT the opinions of your groups haters,, THEY ARE YOU!
Another words,, your argument that Atheists are not a religion with no church, is not with me, it's with Atheists.




yeah,, I think I proved that unless you think all the churchs in that search are fake? You tell me court jester,, Are they ?

Nope, Fact Proven


YOU LOSE

- Con

Maybe you should try putting your query in quotes, you know like this:

"church of atheism"

Then you'll only come up with 40,000 hits

Even most of those hits aren't churches for atheism.

so what are you telling me Dave?? you checked out 30,000 websites to see if they were real church's or are you just that desperate to have the last word?

The point is, Atheism is a belief system with a mission to derail religion and to mock Christianity and Christians or creationists.

I think YOU have proven that much

- Con

It's not like you checked all one million of your search results, so why should I?