Proof of ID the World is Looking For

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 

Another much-loved ATS creationist visits to tell us he has nothing to tell us. Thank you, Conspiriology.

Now, be a gentleman. Pop back to this thread and admit your defeat there. Good man.




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 

Another much-loved ATS creationist pops by to tell us he has nothing to tell us. Thank you, Conspiriology.

Now, be a gentleman. Pop back to this thread and admit your defeat there. Good man.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420


I'm not being rude when I say this, but clearly you don't understand the scientific method


I will say the same thing as my intention isn't to be rude but If I had a nickle for every time I have seen you make this statement "Clearly you don't understand evolution" or "Clearly you don't understand this or that"

Furthermore I am going to go to bat for that girl because you won't find a more passionate person for doing her homework then AshleyD.

She is an incredibly intelligent person and I think you know this Dave. The Scientific method is not THAT hard to grasp. If you could make some indication as to where she is missing the point rather than put forth a simple contradiction without substantiating where you see her making the error exactly I am sure we would BOTH appreciate same.

- Con



[edit on 30-4-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Conspiriology
 

Another much-loved ATS creationist pops by to tell us he has nothing to tell us. Thank you, Conspiriology.

Now, be a gentleman. Pop back to this thread and admit your defeat there. Good man.


Well since you put it so rude and so rich with dis-respect, Ill just pass thank you. I think you would be better to attract bees with honey and Christians with kindness. By the way, asty, I am not a creationist, at least not that I have enough confidence in any one theory to say I am an advocate of any specific creation theory ID or yec. I simply haven't seen enough to choose one over another but they both offer some interesting ideas.

Just thought I would mention that as I have discussions like this with whammy all the time where we disagree on many things.

We are very good friends nevertheless.

- Con



[edit on 30-4-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I've been avoiding your comment because it was so far off but here we go...


Originally posted by dave420
I'm not being rude when I say this, but clearly you don't understand the scientific method.


You are correct. It's not rude- just wrong. I 'clearly' understand what the scientific method is and how it works. I recall you using the same tactic against me on my evolution thread about not understanding the scientific method and you were corrected there, too.

But I am going to turn it around. What kind of evidence would 'seal the deal' for you in terms of intelligent design without a designer showing up one day and saying, 'I did it!" What kind of evidence could you be presented with that would make you say, "Ah ok. Wow. Yes. THAT is intelligent design?"

If a complex design/code like DNA doesn't do it, and parts of the fossil record showing what appears to be a sudden burst of complex organisms doesn't do it, and if the complexity and nature and the astronomical odds of us being here accidentally doesn't do it, and many of the holes in evolutionary evidence doesn't do it, and the gross lack of what should be millions of transitional fossils doesn't do it... Then what exactly will do it for you? Sounds like you need the proof of a designer/creator and which is why I already said (because I am actually of aware of the scientific method):

"When I say 'prove a creator/designer,' I'm talking about it being a necessary step to convince the materialist or secularist in the realm of science."


First find evidence for ID, and that will suggest that there's a designer.


An intelligent code. So far so good.


If your evidence is actual scientific evidence (as in others can verify it


Yup.


and others can repeat your experiments with the same results)...


Sure. Happens all the time with genetic engineering. They 'intelligently design' things all the time by adjusting 'the code.' Now can we prove we started out as a design? At this point I am not sure- not without scientific evidence of a designer. Just my two cents.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



You are one of ATS's most notorious creationists.


"notorious"


I'm just not a poor lost misguided atheist who believes that life just "poofed" into being by magic from the primordial soup. I know God did it. It's not a theory for me.

I notice none of you will even touch talking about the DNA as evidence.
Why? Probably because it overwhelmingly proves the case of designer. You resort to switch and bait tactics - as usual- when faced with incontrovertible evidence. Oh yeah you don't want truth you just want "science".



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
"notorious"


Notorious. You have a new nickname now... 'Notorious Big [Whammy]', you crazy rapper.

Whammy loves it when you call him 'Big Papa. Throw yo' hands in the air like you're a true playa. Whammy loves it when you call him 'Big Papa...'

Funny, after seeing your photos I have to say you kind of look like the rapper Notorious Big, too. Crazy world.



[edit on 4/30/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Stop stalking me and posting my photos on ATS!!



t is no wonder that evolutionists have not come up with any specific scenarios that would explain how life arose from nonliving chemicals. The stories that are put forward are like fairy tales with some science thrown in to make them sound educated. One popular biochemistry textbook admits that there is no physical evidence for the transition of life from nonlife:

Our hypothetical nucleic acid synthesis system is therefore analogous to the scaffolding used in the construction of a building. After the building has been erected the scaffolding is removed, leaving no physical evidence that it was ever there. Most of the statements in this section must therefore be taken as educated guesses. Without having witnessed the event, it seems unlikely that we shall ever be certain of how life arose13 (emphasis in the original).

Far from being educated guesses, the many deceptive evolutionary scenarios seem to be nothing short of biased myths arising from the desperate desire to exclude God from lives and consciences.

How do evolutionists respond to the zero likelihood of life arising by chance? The biochemistry text quoted above asks and then answers the question: “How then did life arise? The answer, most probably, is that it was guided according to the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest as it applies at the molecular level.”14 The key fact to note here is that natural selection simply cannot act unless there are functional, self-replicating molecules present to act on. We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us.

John P Marcus Biochemistry



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Stop stalking me and posting my photos on ATS!!


I didn't. That's an actual pic of Notorious Big. But seeing how you two could pass as identical twins, I understand your confusion. That, and you have that exact same white suit, hat, and cane.


 


On topic...

Just wanted to point something out here. Check out THIS thread by The Redneck where he asks ATS members to provide their knowledge and evidence of evolution so he can become more knowledgeable on the subject. Contrast his tone with the arrogance and condescending attitude of the atheist evolutionist members on this thread. It's a world of difference. The Redneck used something called 'class' and 'respect.' I don't see that coming from the evolutionists in this thread. However, I'm not surprised either. That member was looking for knowledge while this thread seems to be looking for a flame war and argument. Pity. This thread really could have been cool.

[edit on 4/30/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Well I found this I'm not sure if it has been posted in any of the creation/ID vs. evolution threads but I do find it interesting nonetheless.

Gallup Poll Evolution Beliefs Video

Also this:


Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.
The Talk Origins Archive


The earliest date referenced about is 1986 and the latest is 1999, I'm sure there is more up dated material out there, but I haven't found it yet.

One thing that bothers me about the Creation and ID "side" is they seem to act like they know all the variables to life because of there faith and belief in the Bible, like they know all the questions to life and purpose to the point they wish to "teach" everyone especially children there faith like in public schools.

The Gallup poll video above shows that the higher education level you have the less people believe in Creation/ID, this is a fact.

It is also Fact that the more you attend church the less likely it is that you believe in Evolution. Hmmm isn't this interesting

I find it Very interesting that so many would take the opinions of Very few scientist and scientist that "life science" isn't even there field and there political ideology and preachers. Over the rest of the world. Oh my bad, these few people compared to the worlds population have the pride to think they have all the answers because they have faith in the God of the Jews.

I'm kinda tried and grumpy, not meaning to be mean, but I'm sure it is coming off that way.

But ya know if ya started going to church less, well soon there wouldn't be any arguments about this. Brainwashing or divine intervention? hmm makes ya wonder doesn't it?



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
No it's not experimental proof its even better real world proof.


...experimental proof would be real world proof
verifiable, real world proof


The language of DNA is verified, that's how we mapped he genome. The fact we can read it and understand it is proof it is a "code".




Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The fact that DNA is written in a symbolic language and language implies intelligence is evidence not speculation.

...
there's 0 causation in there.


So if you see a set of paper blueprints but didn't witness the draftsman who drew them up in the act of drawing them - there would be zero causation there as well. But obviously the blueprints didn't appear by magic... or maybe you would believe that?

Just like Ashley said, unless God comes down and taps you on the shoulder you will refuse the evidence of design. As the biochemist I quoted earlier said "from the desperate desire to exclude God from lives and consciences."



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


That just proves Ben Steins thesis in Expelled. Evolutionists have a strangle hold on the universities to the exclusion of any real debate.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I was hoping the group of creationists I refer to affectionately as the tag-team would make it to this thread, and here they are, doing their best to cloud the issue.

Well, a few pages of off-topic spam never hurt anyone. All that is necessary is to repeat the OP proposition once again:

What we are looking for here is unfalsifiable proof of intelligent design.

The complexity of DNA isn't falsifiable proof of intelligent design.

Holes in the fossil record are not falsifiable proof of intelligent design.

All we have had on the thread so far is a load of circumstantial evidence that proves nothing except that there is no certainty in science. This does not need to be proved; any scientist will happily admit it, because admitting it means she will always have a job.

Spamming the thread with creationist shibboleths and resentful complaints will not answer, I'm afraid. There will always be sensible folk around to bring the discussion back on topic.

So, when is someone going to post some proof?
Three pages so far. No falsifiable proofs yet. How long will the charade continue?



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax


So, when is someone going to post some proof?
Three pages so far. No falsifiable proofs yet. How long will the charade continue?


Oh this is juicy,, one of my most "notorious" works at JREF is the topic of falsifiability and Ill see to it that first we both know we are on the same page as I love this debate so here is a simple question asty.

Just so I get an idea for what you think this means, if you were to test gravity in this way what would conclude it falsifiable if you could please offer an example.

eager to see your best

- Con



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Contrast his tone with the arrogance and condescending attitude of the atheist evolutionist members on this thread. It's a world of difference. The Redneck used something called 'class' and 'respect.' I don't see that coming from the evolutionists in this thread. However, I'm not surprised either. That member was looking for knowledge while this thread seems to be looking for a flame war and argument. Pity. This thread really could have been cool.

[edit on 4/30/2008 by AshleyD]



Yeah I know what you mean ash,, and I can only guess where they get the idea to act that way. Perhaps the excruciatingly painful to the eyes reading of the Book "God is Not Great" where an obese drunken foul mouthed chain smoker named Christopher Hitchens who writes just as silly as he talks on camera when he says that Religion should be hated and treated as rude and ridiculed as one can. This semtment is also written in Sam Harris writings and Dawkins. I still admire Dawkins uncanny ability to get this Christian to laugh at ourselves though. He cracks me up sometimes how serious we take ourselves even if I don't agree with him, he is the only one that knows how to do that to me.

Than I say how wonderful that kind of tact will work for them in politics and in any area where people have to get along if they want to get ANYTHING done. Then when Atheists wonder why they are hated, they seem to think it has something to do with their active disbelief in God

lol makes me laugh a ton when I think about how

far from the truth that is

- Con



[edit on 30-4-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Just so I get an idea for what you think this means, if you were to test gravity in this way what would conclude it falsifiable if you could please offer an example.

What exactly about gravity do you intend to test?

Whether it exists?

Whence it originates?

What it operates on?

Whether its operations are subject to any law, and if so, what?

The magnitude and direction of the force it exerts (if it is indeed a force)?

Whether or not harp-playing angels on clouds are subject to its cruel constraints?

If you're a falsifiability expert, you'll understand the importance of being specific.

Anyway, your attempt to shove the thread off topic is noted. Just to remind everyone,

this thread exists to allow creationists to present any falsifiable evidence of intelligent design they may have.

So far, they have posted none.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
I was hoping the group of creationists..


Oh, creationists/creationism? Because I thought this thread was asking for evidence of ID, as the title suggests. The Wedge Document aside, technically ID and Creationism are differently defined.


I refer to affectionately as the tag-team would make it to this thread, and here they are, doing their best to cloud the issue.


Nobody is clouding anything. We're asking you to be specific in what it would take for you to accept something as evidence for a design. We're answering your questions, contributing to your thread, and asking you for clarification regarding what you would consider suitable evidence.

We already showed a code and design but how do we show you it was 'intelligently' designed if you don't admit the sheer improbability of something so complex happening by accident and you don't believe in the existence of an intelligent designer? Sounds like you put everyone in a pickle that cannot be won and you are well aware of the fact, as has already been pointed out.


What we are looking for here is unfalsifiable proof of intelligent design.


Not even macro has that. Even their evidence is opened to interpretation and the evidence can be debated.


The complexity of DNA isn't falsifiable proof of intelligent design.


So what do you think that would be? What would you consider proof? I already told you the easiest way is to prove the existence of a designer but you poo-pooed that concept. What 'design' would you like to see because the design you have been shown is skirted around.


Holes in the fossil record are not falsifiable proof of intelligent design.


I agree. Holes in the fossil record are closer to holes in the theory of evolution. Unless you look at the fossil record from a creationist point of view.


How long will the charade continue?


I guess as long as atheist evolutionists keep denying the evidence right in front of their adorable little faces.

[edit on 4/30/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Con, Con Con....

How many times do I have to tell you Atheists don't believe things fall because of the law of gravity as theorized by Bible scholar Sir Issac Newton.

Atheists believe things fall because of Science.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax


this thread exists to allow creationists to present any falsifiable evidence of intelligent design they may have.

So far, they have posted none.




Whether or not harp-playing angels on clouds are subject to its cruel constraints?


Jeez what is it with you guys, is it that hard to ask you to refrain from such childish sarcasm?

Is it?


A New Look at Falsification In Light Of the Duhem-Quine Thesis

A New Look at Falsification In Light Of the Duhem-Quine Thesis
by Andrew Lewthwaite

As an answer to difficulties associated with the traditional inductive method, Karl Popper responds with falsification, a deductive scientific method where, as he describes it, "[a] scientist, whether theorist or experimenter, puts forward statements, or systems of statements, and tests them step by step." [ i] In addition to serving as a solution to the problems of inductive methodology, falsification is also as a demarcation criterion between science and non-science. Popper's method relies heavily on hypothesis testing as the activity characteristic of scientific research. However, this activity would be challenged by the Duhem-Quine thesis. The consequences of this thesis inadvertently question falsification with respect to the feasibility of hypothesis testing, and as a result, challenges the method to the core, both as a means of expanding scientific knowledge and as a demarcation criterion. What will come to light in this paper is that falsification withstands most of the damage done by the Duhem-Quine thesis on the methodological level if certain modifications are made, but as a demarcation criterion, Popper's method cannot provide a clear cut distinction between scientific and non-scientific hypotheses.

The two difficulties that are addressed by Popper that led him to the development of his falsification method are the problems of induction and demarcation. This note is worthy of consideration as Popper's philosophy in its totality is often looked upon as focusing on problems, developing answers by way of creative theorizing, and then testing their validity in practical terms. In a similar manner, the easiest way to elucidate the 'why' and the 'what' of falsification is to examine the problems to which it is considered an answer, that it is considered an answer, and to look at the method in its evolution from those difficulties.

www.ecclectica.ca...



Yeah it is sort of a hobby of mine

but damn,, I sure wouldn't want you to accuse me of pulling things off topic. I know that sort of thing really irritates you guys and I know how quick you all are to press the alert key especially when one of the "tag team" is posting. I just wanted to point out one thing however.

First, I love the old english as much as I do in the king james version but am not impressed with your mis-use of it whence you use it to impress.

Secondly, I will withdraw the previously offered proposition inlieu of your threat it is off topic even though you have posted an interest in having it more defined for you.

I was merely attempting to get the same ground rules you are asking only in a differen't way.

I do think is it mighty disengenuous of you asty to request such data while at the same time creating an environment to make any attempt to do so precariously distasteful with your rude innuendo and cherry picked segements of posts you can easily site as an attempt to derail your precious thread if I didn't point out YOU are the one who brought it up.

Do you really want answers?

Or are you just testing our reflexes and your ability to ridicule?

Are we to take you serious when you do that or should we be more inclined to feel like we are being setup for such a trap then assaulted with a warning from a Mod.

Yeah I'm not one to let things like this go un-noticed and see it as typical of the kind of cheap shot it is.

Shame on you asty,, for I would have loved

that debate

- Con

 


fixed italics




[edit on 30/4/08 by masqua]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Well said, Con.
This thread is a joke and its intentions have been exposed for what they are.

They ask members to help with information only to belittle those who reply while using thick sarcasm. Again, there is a stark contrast between the gentleman thread hosting style of The Redneck and his evidence of evolution thread versus this one.

Then something was asked of you only to have you verbally belittled and told you were off topic once you were answering the question. Looks like they're trying to set you up to get you in trouble. Pretty obvious.

[edit on 4/30/2008 by AshleyD]





 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join