Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

reply to post by Daniem


species do not change in to other species..that is what i disagree with

that has never and will never be proven no matter how many time you say it..sorry

reply to post by resonance

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

Yes, writing of, but after the fact. I am more concerned with records of his time on Earth. Surely the miracles performed are more worthy of recording compared to meticulous inventory counts of how much grain is left? Of all those accounts outside of the bible, none were eyewitness accounts and some of questionable nature, which the wiki article does discuss.

just because i may be younger does not mean i am any less intelligent or that i dont do good enough research.

It may appear that way to yourself, but let's think about this reasonably. Jesus died in AD30, the closest written account of Jesus was from a man born AD37. There may have been an important historical figure who taught what Jesus taught and whom became mythologized in history *which is not uncommon*, but Jesus as the Messiah is simply not true and one only needs to look towards the original Messianic prophecies for validation of this.

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

Your inability to comprehend the text does not detract from what the text is saying. The text give's some accounts in history of a man named Jesus outside of the bible, but also explains that some if not all of those accounts are questionable and none are of eyewitness accounts.

look at both sides of an argument before you start spouting nonsense.

It would be wise to heed your own advice, in which case I point to your *still* lack of failure to produce tangible evidence for your God.

go look at all the proof for the bible, and you just may find the real truth, i pray you do

I bet it would shock you that I own a bible.

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

I believe your attempting to state the the Theory of Evolution is false; Or are you attempting to state that the observation of evolution is false?

You've never set out to make one case in favor of ID, instead you have allowed this thread to devolve into a discussion on the validity of your own personal God being the sole force behind all of creation. What this exercise has done is set out to prove that you have no interest in validating ID and elevating it's status into science-dom, but instead only wished to validate your God as the only possible solution to where the universe and life within has come from. You have invalidated the very supposed nature of your own inquiry, for that you have much to learn.

reply to post by resonance


Define species; Are you of the belief that a species is determined by what it looks like or what it's genetics dictates? Basically, are you of Darwinian thought or modernistic thought?

Originally posted by resonance
reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

 

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

yes. i want the discussion to be on topic. im sure thats hilarious to you.

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..

thats the point. NONE of the historical writers you provided were alive when he was, and all would have been aware of the religion.

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

*facepalmx1000000*

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

....because you know....NOBODY writes anything down if they can ask someone first person. (because we know people back then lived for a long time)

you CLEARLY ignored the link i provided in my last post.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by resonance
I say evolution where one species changes to another is untrue because it is.

Wrong.
There is a vast amount of clear and certain evidence that macro-evolution DOES happen.

You can read some of that evidence here:
www.talkorigins.org...

Will you check the facts or not?

Not all are facts just because someone claims they are.
You give a web page as proof?? haha here is another one with the opposite view.
www.creationsafaris.com...

Originally posted by resonance
you obviously have done no study if you do not know that many historical texts validate the bible as well as the existence of jesus

Why on earth do creationists always bring up Jesus when talking about ID / evolution?

There are NO historical texts that validate the bible.
Which is why you didn't quote any.

Originally posted by resonance
you also say evolution does not include chance? it most certainly does. evolution relies on random mutation

And also on NON-random selection, and also some other processes.

Originally posted by resonance
..the word random goes hand in hand with the chance that a profitable mutation occurs, and is carried on

We directly observe beneficial mutations occur and get passed on.
We have observed new species evolve.
www.talkorigins.org...

Do you ever plan to check the facts ?


K.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by peaceonearth]

reply to post by resonance

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

Wow, by that logic Scientology must be the one true real religion! Why would *anyone* just make something and so many people blindly believe it is real when we can all just so easily ask the people in the religion what evidence they have for it and they can point to anything they wish!

And the fun begins... Hold on tight folks!

i never showed a flawed view of science
...
but i do not like when people do not look at all the sides and consider all alternatives, that is not science

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

1. Gather data ( observations about something that is unknown, unexplained, or new )
2. Hypothesize an explanation for those observations.
3. Deduce a consequence of that explanation (a prediction). Formulate an experiment to see if the predicted consequence is observed.
4. Wait for corroboration. If there is corroboration, go to step 3. If not, the hypothesis is falsified. Go to step 2.

Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work.

1. Has God been observed? No.
2. I hypothesize that God does not exist.
3. I predict no physical tangible evidence for God exists.
4. Evidence is corroborated by the believers in God, they agree no physical evidence for God exists because that's not "how he does thangs".

I thank God and his followers for helping me realize a very important goal tonight.

reply to post by sirnex


i honestly dont get what will satisfy all of you lol its so sad

you wont count the gospel accounts or the pauline letters because they are in the bible..those are the first hand accounts and are why they are there

i provide other people in history who knew of this mans existence, who did not profit from the religion as they were from different backgrounds but that does not suffice

the evidence for the creator is everywhere..the complexity of the universe, matter, energy, life, none of its existence can be explained by science but through a creator it can and you reject it and say it is not evidence

the fact that we know so much about all these things but can not reproduce the results should show you science has it wrong, but you willingly choose not to see it that way

i pray you all will learn to stop relying on the flawed system of modern science as it hates new ideas and contrary beliefs and refuses to accept them, this is the downfall of today, not religion

but im out..goodnight all

reply to post by resonance


you are so absolutely freaking frustrating to talk to.

we dont accept the accounts from the bible since well....we dont know who wrote all of the accounts.

Also...using a book that says its from god to prove god doesnt work.

complexity isnt proof of design. blood spatters are complex. but no one sat there at a crime scene and designed them.

you know what.....this is pointless. you talk about people using flawed systems etc... but youre falling into every stereotypical ID flaw there is. and you ignore the fact that youre doing that. we pointed them out several times. we have given you links that pretty much tell you everything thats wrong with what youre saying and youre telling us we dont do research because golly...its all so complex.

and you still gave no proof that ID is science. saying "gee isnt everything beautiful" is NOT SCIENCE.


[edit on 3-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

reply to post by resonance

i honestly dont get what will satisfy all of you lol its so sad

When you understand why you denounce the validity of everyone else' God, you'll then understand why we denounce yours.

you wont count the gospel accounts or the pauline letters because they are in the bible..those are the first hand accounts and are why they are there

Do you understand how old the apostles would have to have been in order to be the actual authors?

i provide other people in history who knew of this mans existence, who did not profit from the religion as they were from different backgrounds but that does not suffice

Reread the Greco-Roman section.

the evidence for the creator is everywhere..the complexity of the universe, matter, energy, life, none of its existence can be explained by science but through a creator it can and you reject it and say it is not evidence

That is not evidence, that is speculation and wonderment. Nor have you explained why your God is the only possible creator and why it couldn't be fifty-nine Gods who created in unison.

the fact that we know so much about all these things but can not reproduce the results should show you science has it wrong, but you willingly choose not to see it that way

And there is a second flaw in your understanding. The honest answer is that we *don't* know a lot about the universe, about life, about our world. We know possibly less than a fraction of what there is to know. Not knowing however is not proof of your God.

i pray you all will learn to stop relying on the flawed system of modern science as it hates new ideas and contrary beliefs and refuses to accept them, this is the downfall of today, not religion

Another flaw in your understanding. Science is all about new ideas, new discoveries, new theories that may better explain what is observed. What science is not about is inventive invisible speculations that can never be proven.

There is just as much proof from a personal perspective for a rain God, do you now also denounce the water cycle as you do evolution and as by your logic of denouncing evolution should also be readily denouncing gravity?

The best example of Bible prophecy coming true(in the modern world) is the rebirth (as promised) of the Jewish state of Israel (never again to cease to exist). The Bible foretold that the nations around Israel would hate it and try to destroy it. The city of Jerusalem would be a stumbling block for the nations. This is a prophecy that is being fulfilled before our eyes. God said he done this not for the sake of the Jews, but because he promised Abraham.

A good example of a prophecy currently half fulfilled is the one about the east gate in Jerusalem (the Eastern Gate will be closed and will not be reopened until the Messiah returns in glory (Ezekiel 44:1-3)) That gate will remain closed until the Messiah comes. So it is impossible for this gate to be opened beforehand.

A future prophecy is the one that all the nations of the earth will gather together and try to destroy Israel (without success)

There are many, many, many, more for anyone who is willing to take the time to find out the truth.
Keep your eyes on Israel that is where the end time events are concentrated.

Oct 30, 2009 — “Plant fossils give first real picture of earliest Neotropical rainforests,” announced a press release from University of Florida. The fossils from Colombia show that “many of the dominant plant families existing in today’s Neotropical rainforests – including legumes, palms, avocado and banana – have maintained their ecological dominance despite major changes in South America’s climate and geological structure.”
The team found 2,000 megafossil specimens from the Paleocene, said to be 58 million years old. This is only 5 to 8 million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs according to conventional dating. “The new study provides evidence Neotropical rainforests were warmer and wetter in the late Paleocene than today but were composed of the same plant families that now thrive in rainforests.” The press release says that the fossil record from neotropical rain forests has been “almost nonexistent” – but now, it is evident that modern plant families existed then. “We have the fossils to prove this,” one said. “The foundations of the Neotropical rainforests were there 58 million years ago.”
The only difference between modern rainforests and the fossil record is more diversity now. But since identification of species can only be made to the genus level, there may be some subjectivity in that judgment. An earlier team also found the skeleton of a giant snake at the open coal pit mine – Titanoboa. “Like Titanoboa, which is clearly related to living boas and anacondas, the ancient forest of northern Colombia had similar families of plants as we see today in that ecosystem.”
In a related story, Live Science pushed the “oldest known spider web” back another 4 million years (cf. 06/23/2006). The web material, encased in amber, not only proves that spiders had the web-making equipment as far back as the fossil record shows, but that it has continued with little change for 140 million years according to the consensus dating scheme.

All right, Darwinists: you say evolution is a fact, and fossils are the evidence. Where is the evolution? 58 million years have gone by in your scheme, and we have the exact same families of plants today. There isn’t enough difference to concern the most fervent young-earth creationists (notice that ICR celebrated this find as confirming of a young earth and global flood). Surely if natural selection was acting for such a huge amount of time, we should expect to see some evolution. Remember, you believe that a cow turned into a whale in less than half that time. We love fossils and evidence, but give us a reason other than your own bluff to take your storytelling scheme seriously.
www.creationsafaris.com...

[edit on 3-11-2009 by peaceonearth]

There is a theory out there that we live in a computer simulation reality. The guy makes a really convincing case and he has a masters in electrical engineering from Cornell.
It is not clear who the programmers are but he presents evidence that they are running Ancestor simulation program and we are it.

People may call this crazy but they laughed at Darwin, too.

Originally posted by peaceonearth
. We love fossils and evidence, but give us a reason other than your own bluff to take your storytelling scheme seriously.
www.creationsafaris.com...

[edit on 3-11-2009 by peaceonearth]

heres our reason. DNA

oh and your cow to whale thing?
NICE
one of the best straw men ive seen in a while.
cows didnt turn into whales
sandwalk.blogspot.com...
that links to a nice link on whale evolution if you like.
www.pbs.org...

your big refutation of evolution was similar plant life over a long period of time? really? and the change isnt enough to concern young-earth creationists? the ones who think all of the animals in the world were within walking distance of noahs ark? GASP!

it would have been nice if you went to the link your creationist website provided. if you had, you would have found things like:

"Researchers were surprised by the relative lack of diversity found in the Paleocene rainforest"

"The study’s authors say the relative lack of diversity indicates either the beginning of rainforest species diversification or the recovery of existing species from the Cretaceous extinction event.
(heres the link for you)
news.ufl.edu...

so clearly the "evidence" against evolution you provided was rather atypical. but still not impossible.
and even on your creationist pseudonews site it says (in bold)
[titanoboas were]"clearly related to living boas and anacondas"
titanoboas changed into boas and anacondas but not by much. i guess they didnt get the memo
and on a side note....diproving evolution will still not make ID science.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

Science as whole (meaning not just evolution) is a great thing. We are living in times where man is unraveling the mysteries of the universe. And it’s great to be a part of that.

But we are still learning and there are still allot of "theories". Evolution has allot of holes (not that it disproves the existence of God) just like allot of the other theories. And thats ok, if all the mysteries were solved already life would be pretty boring.

Science can explain "God's" machine but can never disprove that he exists. How could it, we can only examine what we are presented.

Some people just do not want to believe that there is a creator of the universe and will use whatever they can to back that up. And most of them will become downright hostile when you try and question that.

"Faith" that science will figure it out. Some people just hate God... look at Richard Dawkins, that’s one bitter dude.


[edit on 3-11-2009 by Dark Passenger]

reply to post by Dark Passenger



*facepalm* (theres too much of that)
i look at dawkins and i see adorable. not bitter.

"he hates god?" no he doesn- oh wait. you can read minds. youre right, he hates something he doesnt believe exists.

Oh, this one's easy.

Plant families.

Avacado - Lauraceae
This family includes plants such as cinnamon, sassafras, camphor, and bay laurel.

Legumes - Fabaceae
This family includes the culinary favorites of beans, peas, and lentils, as well as livestock favorites like clover and alfalfa. However it's extremely diverse, including the aforementioned herbs and vines, and also the large acacia trees of Africa, the locusts of Eurasia and North America, and others you may not expect such as kudzu, violets, and mimosa.

Bananas - Musaceae
If they're right about finding this family, it's actually a pretty big find - Musaceae is, as far as we know, restricted to the old world - Africa and Southeast Asia. If found in South America, it could put the origins of this particular family way way way back into the past, pre-dinosaur. At any rate, this family comprises three genuses. I imagine that this find may add an extinct fourth to the family. Of course, since this family has no living relatives native to the region, I'd question the article's claim that it's a "dominant plant"

Palms - Arecaceae
These are... Well, palms. They're all over the damn place, though probably originated in the former supercontinent Gondwanaland.

I can't really expect people who don't even understand the book they plot their entire existence around to actually know a lick about Botany though...

All right, Darwinists: you say evolution is a fact, and fossils are the evidence. Where is the evolution? 58 million years have gone by in your scheme, and we have the exact same families of plants today. There isn’t enough difference to concern the most fervent young-earth creationists (notice that ICR celebrated this find as confirming of a young earth and global flood).

Actually, we "Darwinists" have found that genetics is a much more effective source of evidence for evolution. Fossils are tertiary. Sort of like "Exhibit Q" on the evidence table. Handy, but even without them, we'd still have plenty to go on.

I suggest you learn the difference between the various taxonomic terms before coming in with this stuff.

Surely if natural selection was acting for such a huge amount of time, we should expect to see some evolution. Remember, you believe that a cow turned into a whale in less than half that time. We love fossils and evidence, but give us a reason other than your own bluff to take your storytelling scheme seriously.
www.creationsafaris.com...

Actually, not a cow. Molecular evidence and a damn near unbroken line of transitional intermediary fossils point towards hippopotamuses and whales sharing a common ancestor. This is different from a hippo "turning into" a whale, but just like I don't expect you to "get" botany, I don't have high hopes for your language skills, either.

It's important to note that natural selection is not a constant. A species suitably adapted to its environment really has no pressures that would cause a new species to diverge from it, until the situation changes. This is how the hair louse became the body louse roughly ninety thousand years ago (twice!) - due to humans losing lots of body hair but inventing clothing - and yet, a creature like the Coelocanth, living in an environment that's been consistent for millions of years, hasn't changed much from its ancestral form.

Of course, there's always genetic drift as I described above - you can rest assured that these plants they've found, though probably members of extant families, are not clones (we can be VERY sure in the case of Musaceae, what with hte dearth of native south American bananas...)

[edit on 3-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

Intelligent Design is impossible.

It states that the universe was created by an "Intelligent Designer," however if the universe didn't exist yet then what was this designer made of? Where was this designer located? It's not even logical, let alone scientific. It's like asking where a person came from, and then answering that she gave birth to herself.

The entire Intelligent Design movement was a thinly veiled backdoor attempt to teach religious fairy tales in public schools. It wasn't a scientific theory in the slightest. It wasn't written and conceived by the scientific process. It was just blurted out by a bunch of Christian organizations and a few guys in white lab coats that were working for them.

Furthermore, every last person involved in that movement knew darn well they were talking about God when they said "Intelligent Designer," whether they admitted it or not. Every. Last. Person. In their attempts to insult the intelligence of the scientific community, they only managed to prove their own lack thereof.

reply to post by Dark Passenger


Erm... You know that a scientific theory is different from a layman theory, right? If something is scientifically classed as a theory, then it is as high up the ladder as possible for the physical sciences. if it makes it to that level, then it's essentially hole-free.

The reason that the physicall sciences can't go past Theory into Law is because we don't know if they are universal constants. Pi will always equal 3.14~ no matter where you are. But there may be places in the universe where gravity doesn't work like we think it should, where plate tectonics aren't important to the geology of a planet, or where evolution doesn't happen.

Actually a world where evolution doesn't happen actually is the most likely of those three - It's possible that somewhere in the universe there is a world with life... where that life's genome is rigid, and every individual organism is in fact a perfect clone of whatever the first organism was. What a weird place that would be. An autocannibal self-replicating molecule dominates the world. Rephrase - what a neat place that would be!

I just can't believe the ID people always seem to bring Jesus, their god, and the bible and the supposed prophecies every time they discuss evolution. As I have mentioned earlier, that way you people won't get anywhere. follow the steps I outlined in page three if you are serious about substituting evolution theory with intelligent design. Saying things like "the universe is so complex that a creator must exist", "bible prophecies are coming true therefore the bible is right", etc. are not only straight out lies backed with no real evidence, but are also completely irrelevant to the discussion of evolution versus pseudo-science intelligent design.

They are what one calls red herrings, topics introduced in an issue to divert a discussion, usually with an agenda in mind (in this case place pseudo-science in our education systems).

Well, I will bite one of the red herrings willingly, the one about the so-called prophecies that are supposedly coming true. don't you people think that this prophecy coming true is simply self-fulfilling prophecy? Many of the world leaders are religious in one way or another, so it was to their delusional advantage to create Israel at the time. the Arab states attacking Israel was also self-fulfilling prophecy; obviously creating a state against the wishes of the surrounding nations would cause a violent reaction. This event did not prove the bible correct, it simply proved that our world leaders are willing to self-fulfill so-called prophecies and then rationalize (self-deception) that this proves the bible right.

Anyway, i digress and went off-topic a bit, but that little detail was necessary to be addressed. So as I was saying, if you think the theory of evolution is false that is fine with me. It only shows you are willing to ignore the most well-supported theory in science to stick to religious fundamentalism and dogma; the intelligent deity worshipers are aware that evolution theory is very well-supported, and have no problems with believing in their god(s) while also accepting scientific advancement and knowledge.

In addition, keep your false "theory" to yourselves unless you people manage to support your so-called theory with reliable facts, data, and observations. In other words science. If you people are not willing to do so, then keep your pseudo-science out of my country's science classrooms.

After reading all these posts,I just wonder if the same people who believe in the science of evolution as opposed to an intelligent Creator also believe in the "science" of Global Warming.

Any responses?