Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I believe religion is the most basic form of science.

The definition of science is to use logic to describe how things happen. Back in the day, religion was that way.

Like any "foundation"...it continues to play a major part in the world. A bad analogy though because I feel we need to eventually move on...or maybe not?




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist
 


Would be a decent theory if "logic" and "religion" weren't almost always polar opposites. I mean from Christianity's "god created everything and if you doubt it you'll be tortured forever" all the way out to Buddhism's "ejaculate into your own bladder or else women will steal your soul" goofiness, "logic" doesn't really have a place with religion.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox "ejaculate into your own bladder or else women will steal your soul"


Where can I find some info on this? That is hilarious!

No offense to Buddhists



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Im not going to take the time to reply to all this, i have an economics test tomorrow that i must study for, but many of you are just stating things that are not true. i have done the research, much of what you are telling me i am wrong about is itself just wrong. i have heard all of these things before. go search historical texts jesus was real, and some do mention his miracles

i would not be suprised if many of you have not seen the opposition to evolution, or choose to think it ignorant just because it disagrees, species into another species has never and will never be observed/proven

jesus dying on the cross was not about him suffering and dying some horrid death, it was about paying for adams original sin

whoever said the prophecies of the suffering servant were about israel has not studied at all

all of the information is very readily avaiable but it seem many of you just choose not to accept it. there is nothin to disproves the bible

there is plenty that disproves evolution and there is plenty that disagrees with other scientific theories

i did not go site tons of sources because i dont want to spend the time i have other things i must do, but many people on this site like to claim to be so intelligent and "awake" so do your research on all these things. youll find i have not said anything that was untrue



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by resonance
have heard all of these things before. go search historical texts jesus was real, and some do mention his miracles


yes historical texts. yes yes yes....blah blah blah...but the problem is none of them were written during jesus' life time. and none by eyewitnesses. so what you have is something like...3rd, 4th, 5th, nth hand accounts...of hearsay


i would not be suprised if many of you have not seen the opposition to evolution, or choose to think it ignorant just because it disagrees, species into another species has never and will never be observed/proven

the opposition is almost solely "god did it" and "psh yeah right. i didnt come from a monkey"


jesus dying on the cross was not about him suffering and dying some horrid death, it was about paying for adams original sin


oh poor jesus. a few days of misery and he gets to be god.




all of the information is very readily avaiable but it seem many of you just choose not to accept it. there is nothin to disproves the bible

except the koran. go read it. its gods truth. i know this because it says so.


there is plenty that disproves evolution and there is plenty that disagrees with other scientific theories

what disproves evolution. we have asked for this. we have asked for science supporting ID. none has been presented


i did not go site tons of sources because i dont want to spend the time i have other things i must do, but many people on this site like to claim to be so intelligent and "awake" so do your research on all these things. youll find i have not said anything that was untrue


hmm seems i was right earlier when i said you were in way over your head. YOU clearly havent done the research as you've misrepresented both evolution and what science is.

ps. still waiting on the science to support ID.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Polar opposites now, but not so much in the past.

Assuming our ancestors were "stupid" compared to us now, and given the tools they had, making up gods and such does not sound so ridiculous personally.

Now, today, it is VERY questionable.

All I am saying is that religion was the process of using logic to explain things. It is just that logic back in the day was not nothing compared to what it is now.

Hell, even scientific facts/theories today and in the "recent" past have been disproved, while new ones pop up that can then be further validated or slapped with the big void stamper.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 



Im not going to take the time to reply to all this, i have an economics test tomorrow that i must study for, but many of you are just stating things that are not true. i have done the research, much of what you are telling me i am wrong about is itself just wrong. i have heard all of these things before. go search historical texts jesus was real, and some do mention his miracles


Economics test; This implies to me that you are still young, in which case, you have a lot to learn. I have asked you before to cite sources as throughout my years I have never come across any historical references to Jesus nor his miracles as they occurred when he was alive.


i would not be suprised if many of you have not seen the opposition to evolution, or choose to think it ignorant just because it disagrees, species into another species has never and will never be observed/proven


Quiet the contrary my young friend, evolution is observed on a near daily basis, which is why the theory of evolution was developed as we attempt to discover the processes in which it occurs. I can cite hundreds of news and research paper sources if your willing to trudge through and refute that much information.


jesus dying on the cross was not about him suffering and dying some horrid death, it was about paying for adams original sin whoever said the prophecies of the suffering servant were about israel has not studied at all all of the information is very readily avaiable but it seem many of you just choose not to accept it.


Most, if not all of the Jews, in which the prophecies are for *not for Christians*, would tend to disagree with you.


there is nothin to disproves the bible


There is plenty, especially if we are considering the New Testament.


there is plenty that disproves evolution and there is plenty that disagrees with other scientific theories


By that logic we should thus denounce gravity immediately! We shall start a movement and prove to the world that it is instead God's gentle hand pushing us all down onto the Earth so we shalt not fall up into space!


i did not go site tons of sources because i dont want to spend the time i have other things i must do, but many people on this site like to claim to be so intelligent and "awake" so do your research on all these things. youll find i have not said anything that was untrue


I have been studying this possibly much longer than you have my young friend. I can guarantee you that you are wrong. It truly is a shame that you can't or refuse to back up anything you have said and then in such a young stage of life demand to be taken seriously. Rest assured, I was there myself, we all eventually grow up. Good luck on that test kiddo!



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I think the absolute main problem that generally dogs this topic and puts me right off it at times, is the sheer amount of assumtion involved, and not only that but the agenda side of things too, more people need to look at this issue without a pre-concieved notion as to the outcome.

Im neither religious nor strictly scientific, I dont like to hold beliefs, I like to hold current stances.

And in my honest opinion, at the moment, I do believe in an organising force edging on if not a completely full blown intelligence, it is a logical conlusion based on the sheer beautiful complexity of everything.

I do see a LOT of holes in the Theory of Evolution and Im not tyrading against it but Im not slightly religious either.



I always though "natural selection" one of the hallmarks of evolution, was also one of teh best cases against it, as it alone implies an intelligence at work.

On another note, lets not turn this into a thread about whether or not Jesus exists for Christ sake(pun intended)


Anyway thats my current stance!!!!
Other great inds have summed my thoughts up better than I ever could.


Heres a few quotes!!



The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. --- Albert Einstein

--- Albert Einstein

There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. -- J. Robert Oppenheimer


In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

--- Galileo Galilei



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist
 


Would be a decent theory if "logic" and "religion" weren't almost always polar opposites. I mean from Christianity's "god created everything and if you doubt it you'll be tortured forever" all the way out to Buddhism's "ejaculate into your own bladder or else women will steal your soul" goofiness, "logic" doesn't really have a place with religion.


whats all that have to do with God or Science attempting to explore the "mountains of evidence, in fact a universe of evidence for intelligent design? Until someone finally asks God, what religion he is affiliated with, I don't think we should keep science from looking in the direction of something they don't even believe, yet believe it enough that it threatens the bejesus out of them. If a God like being exists, and religion is man made, then why do we discriminate against intelligent design calling it religion when the God we have yet to prove using the same scientific method evolution has NEVER passed, but seem to know it has a religion and it is most likely the one they don't like.

Like Science is using all this over rated logic I keep hearing about. Science is a pathetic joke when it comes to what they think they can have room to judge as illogical.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Quiet the contrary my young friend, evolution is observed on a near daily basis, which is why the theory of evolution was developed as we attempt to discover the processes in which it occurs. I can cite hundreds of news and research paper sources if your willing to trudge through and refute that much information.



Don't you think its a little unscrupulous to assume he was talking about the kind of evolution you will inevitably use to equivocate an observed phenomena most religious have no argument with and one that has never been observed? Oh yes by all means do submit YOUR most convincing piece of evidence and Ill bet you it stumbles over the fallacy for assuming the consequent every time. You seem to have a rather convincing aura of certainty and most likely assume we just don't understand evolution.

I'm pretty certain I can prove YOU haven't learned enough about what it is you think you are so cock sure of yourself about.

Lets first understand what evolution we are talking about. Then of we have a disagreement, we can simply use the scientific method and test it.

Spare me the colorful adjectives about how strong a theory it is and how well tested it has been the ad populim number of scientist's that agree with it or the politically picked papers of the pathetic peer review. None of that will be of any significance to the scientific method to either falsify or substantiate the fact of evolution or the silly hypothesis it has always been, if we're talkng about the same thing.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by Matt_Mason]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
If the ID people want their "theory" to be accepted by the scientific and scholarly world, then here are the things you people need to do:

1) First, show conclusive evidence that your god/goddess/deity or deities exists. By this I do not mean a "holy" text, or saying "just look at the complexity of nature, god must exist!" or any such nonsense. If your deity/deities are real and still exists, as you people claim, then show conclusive proof this is true. Remember, the fallacy of appeal to ignorance is stating that evidence of absence means something is true. (example: there are no records of rape in the wild west, therefore rape never occurred in the wild west. No one has any evidence of ghosts, therefore ghost exist.)

2) Formulate a testable hypothesis that can be recreated by other individuals and scientists. make an experiment in which the deity creates a cat from thin air. observe for evidence of this in a controlled laboratory and the outside world.

3) look for evidence to back up the theory. find real cases of the deity forming a complex organism from thin air without having to use the process of evolution in a matter of minutes.

4) peer-review. the people must look for a way to disprove the theory. Demonstrate that there is no enough proof to accept the theory or that the theory needs more proof. Strengthen the theory until it becomes a much stronger theory than the theory of evolution.

5) theory in science is a collection of facts, concepts, observations, data, models, ideas, etc. they are NOT gospel. the theory of evolution could be replaced if enough evidence is shown to demonstrate it is not an adequate way to explain the natural world. for now it is the most versatile way to explain the existence of all our current life forms on Earth and why they have similarities. this theory of evolution, as well as all the other theories in science, are our best way to explain the world around us and are treated as true until new evidence comes to light.

So, to conclude, if you Intelligent Design supporters are serious in wanting to make your theory replace evolution in Biology classes, then take the steps above. I assure you that if you people manage to accomplish this task you will revolutionize the scientific and academic world.

Your first step is to demonstrate your deity exists. Good luck getting through the first step, because I seriously doubt you will all be successful



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outlawstar
I think the absolute main problem that generally dogs this topic and puts me right off it at times, is the sheer amount of assumtion involved, and not only that but the agenda side of things too, more people need to look at this issue without a pre-concieved notion as to the outcome.


the main problem that dogs it is lack of evidence


it is a logical conlusion based on the sheer beautiful complexity of everything.

no it isnt. complexity isnt proof of a creator.



I always though "natural selection" one of the hallmarks of evolution, was also one of teh best cases against it, as it alone implies an intelligence at work.


how so?


On another note, lets not turn this into a thread about whether or not Jesus exists for Christ sake(pun intended)

agreed


[edit on 3-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I would like to state the following: Before I responded to this post, I took the time to go through and read about the principles on intelligent design.
I have also followed the arguments and discussions on such, from time to time.

I believe the reason why people say intelligent design is not scientific is because of who is pushing for this to be taught and the way it is presented.
I would say that my view of intelligent design, is that an intelligence is responsible for the lifeforms that are seen on the earth. Now it might not say God, but it has a strong resemblence to such. But I will also say, that like all revolutionary theories, that it requires more research and time for the evidence to speak for itself.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


it doesnt require more time for the evidence to speak for itself.

it needs some evidence. complexity is not evidence. just saying its only logical isnt evidence. some science would be evidence. but that doesnt seem to have anything to do with ID.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Matt_Mason
 



Lets first understand what evolution we are talking about. Then of we have a disagreement, we can simply use the scientific method and test it.


Let's get this out of the way first then. What is your understanding of evolution as without your understanding I would have trouble locating exactly what is needed to persuade you in your erroneous statements. Are you of the old Darwinian Evolutionary Theory or do you subscribe to the more modern thoughts of the process itself? Are you concerned with the bones as an end all or do you subscribe to the modern knowledge of the importance DNA plays in the evolutionary process?


Spare me the colorful adjectives about how strong a theory it is


I have made no claims as to the validity or strength of any theory of evolution. The only assertion I have made is that the theories involved that depict the process of evolution arose from the observation of it occurring in nature.

Do you so readily and violently also discredit gravity as a real phenomena simply because there are many different theories attempting to explain this observable phenomena?


I'm pretty certain I can prove YOU haven't learned enough about what it is you think you are so cock sure of yourself about.


This should be fun. Really!



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


well i had typed a long page of info and it got deleted so here

en.wikipedia.org...

that page tells a lot of people writing of jesus in history

just because i may be younger does not mean i am any less intelligent or that i dont do good enough research. i found that page with a quick google search and if "in all your years" you could not find that or anything similar you are not a good researcher my friend

look at both sides of an argument before you start spouting nonsense. go look at all the proof for the bible, and you just may find the real truth, i pray you do

evolution is not a fact, i have looked at both sides, there is plenty of problems with it as well as valid arguments, but saying it is fact is just ludicrous and stubbornness



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 


you claim to have been studying science and yet you seem to lack a basic understanding of what pure science is. Science is about observing the natural world, theorizing why it does what it does and testing your hypothesis in the most thorough manner possible to either verify or falsify your conjecture. In real science no rational solution can be absolutely ruled out at first. It is only thru rigorous testing and examining that ideas are either accepted or disgarded. And, in REAL science, there always exists the possibility that new discoveries and observations may either alter or completely discredit previously held ideas. A good example of this is how the discovery of Quantum physics kicked Newton's laws to the sidelines in a lot of ways.

The ideal scientist is dispassionate and non-partisan. His mind is open and ready to go to whatever conclusion the verifiable facts may lead him. So, before moving on, let's sum up the scientific approach in a general flow-chart sort of way.
1. a naturally occuring phenomena is observed.
2. it is studied rigorously.
3. suppositions are formed as to the probable cause of the phenomena.
4. tests are designed to assertain whether or not the theories are consistent with previously established facts.
5. the explanations are either found to be adequate to explain the phenomena or are rejected as erroneous.

Creationism turns this method on it's ear because it presupposes the existence of a creating intelligence, (which we all realize is shorthand for the Christian JHVH) and then attempts to cull the panorama of scientific theory and data, some of it respectible and some of it bats**t crazy, in order to substantiate their pre-existing maxim. The flaw in the whole argument is that, in order to prove the fact of Creationism, they ultimately have to be able to prove the existence of their Creator, and that is something that they patently cannot do. The best they can do is to selectively focus on experiments which they can spin into positively suggesting that some guiding intelligence is behind everything.

But let's just be completely honest here. The hypothesis that an intelligent thing existed prior to the very beginning of space, time, energy and matter demands me to ask of what could a structure capable of sustaining that intelligence be comprised of and in what space could he/she/it have existed prior to the formation of everything? Shall we call it protospace with a big glowing proto-brain, all powerful and all-knowing? Where's your proof for that supposition? You guys love to talk about souls. But what really is a soul but our own sense of existence and immortality? With a few snips here and a few snips there in a lobotomy procedure I can pretty much eradicate any knowledge that you exist at all on your part. Your sense of being is a result of your normal brain activities which cannot function without the very physical and very real structures within your brain. Before anything existed, what was the creator's brain constructed of? Before there was energy what force drove it?

Maybe your time would be better spent in comparative religion courses. You honestly might find some answers there. Also check out Joseph Cambell. He can learn you much.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 


the problem with those writers of "jesus in history" is...
that isnt what this thread is about.

oh yeah. also
they lived several years/decades after jesus' death reporting on hearsay.
also all of the historical writings of him occurred after the gospels.
if a man was doing some super crazy awesome miracles, wouldnt you know...people record it?

heres this.nobeliefs.com...

but more importantly

this thread is not about jesus' existence.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
 


lol so you attack the threads purpose..arent we trying to learn

josephus was born 4-5 years after jesus' death.. the others 30-40 years and its obvious that they would have to talk about him after his life..

if i did a report on lets say amelia earhart, would it just be hearsay since i never met her? she existed bottom line many people did meet her

those people writing that long ago knew jesus existed they would not spread doctrine about a man knowing that people could easily just ask people who supposedly saw him that werent connected to the religion

and to godless--

i know what science is about, im saying science can't prove how life began, it cant, yes i cant physically prove my creator, unless you want to count this miraculous world and universe we live in as evidence..i never showed a flawed view of science, i just interpret its findings differently than you, i have no problems with science, but i do not like when people do not look at all the sides and consider all alternatives, that is not science



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by resonance
 





Evolution is not a fact, i have looked at both sides, there is plenty of problems with it as well as valid arguments, but saying it is fact is just ludicrous and stubbornness


Biological evolution is an observable fact, as there is clearly genetic change from one generation to the next. Evolution, whether micro- or macro-, is an observed fact of life. It doesn't matter how often people like you keep repeating that it doesn't happen because life isn't limited by such people's limited knowledge or imagination.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join