Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Wow, I go to work then come home and sleep and look at all the zany I missed out on!


Originally posted by Keymaster1
I'll tell you a secret! if your female, look down to your you-know-what.
There is something there that PROVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT WE WERE CREATED!
It's called a HYMEN, it's sole function is as a chastity detector!
It is debatable whether it it fool-proof, but it's reliability is astronomical!
Also, there is NO OTHER ANIMAL ON THIS PLANET WITH ONE!
Think about it.
If anyone can PROVE ME WRONG, I WILL RELENT AND WILL GIVE EVOLUTION A CHANCE, until then, CASE CLOSED!
And please tell everyone this, and maybe we can end this stupid debate.


Who is telling you this goofy stuff? Elephants have hymens. So do horses. Guinea pigs, too! And we can't leave out alpacas and llamas.

I'm also seeing that female hyenas posses a hymen as well, and that sounds very counter-productive. By the way, if you want a reason do doubt an intelligent creator? Look at hyena reproduction. Female spotted hyenas are an amazingly horrible "design." I can go into more detail if you like, I've studied these animals for years.


Originally posted by On the Edge
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


You do know then that certain humans have a nasty little agenda regarding the whole "global warming" scenario,right?

I'm sure you would never consider the possibility that Satan has an agenda behind the theories of evolution?


Yes, I know that "Conservatives" and other assorted and sundry ignorant bastards have quite the agenda to pretend it doesn't exist, since adressing the problem would potentially cut into CEO profits. And we can't let their constituents have anything less than a 1056% return every can we?


Well, no, because while I have proof that conservatives (unfortunately) exist, and have seen enough of their arguments firsthand to assure me of their agenda, I have yet to see any evidence for any sort of deity, sub-deity, demigod, spirit, or assorted imp, much less a particular Hebraic goon.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by resonance
 


Very simply put in Layman's terms, it's both an "Appeal to Ridicule" and an "Ad hominem" attack. Neither of which is a VALID argument against.

When people do not want to address the actual points made, yet then proceed to attack the person making the statements or attack their results by ridiculing them then they think they have won the argument.

In reality it renders their counterargument void in it's entirety, however it is a very powerful attack because 99% of "Joe Public" doesn't understand the rules of logical debate and accepts fallacies of logic on face value.



If you have not been noticing, sir, several of us have pointed out the reasons ID is not "science" - the major reason is that it doesn't follow the scientific method. If it at least tried, that would be something.

You want to talk about logical fallacies? ID is, currently, 100% argument from incredulity. "I don't understand how it works, so it must be magic."


Originally posted by Outlawstar
My question is this, why doesint evolution seem to apply to humans?
Where did Cro-Magnon man come from 35,000 years ago?

It is clear that they are not as conventionally was believed related, that is, Neanderthal ws not Cro-magnon's ancestor, they were completely different skeletally and physically, and why does it seem that Neanderthals became more primitive before abruptly dissapearing, why have we evolved way beyond the needs to survive


Oh, but it DOES apply to humans! Compared to modern humans, Cro-Magnons were blocky, flat-headed, prognathous goons with too many teeth. If we go back to Africa and look at anatomically modern humans (as contrasted to behaviorally modern humans) we find even more primitive features, even brow ridges. They're still homo sapiens, they're just a spectacularly non-pretty homo sapiens.

Why have we changed so much? Technology. Fire allows us to cook our food, meaning it's softer and needs less chewing - thus why our jaws are shorter and weaker than those of our H. sapiens forebearers - which is why wisdom teeth are such a problem for us. Projectile weapons, sturdy clothing, and the ability to build shelter meant that we developed a more gracile form - we didn't need to put so much of our energy towards grrowing muscle and bone mass, shed our hair, lost a lot of fat, etc.

No, H. neanderthalis was not H. sapiens' forbearer. They do however share a common ancestor. Currently this ancestor is thought to be H. heidelbergensis.

And do you want to know why neanderthals became "more primitive" looking? Inbreeding. The Aurignacian H. sapiens culture had pushed neanderthals to the extremes of their range - the very southern reaches of Iberia and the Italian peninsular, and there they sat, basically breeding among their own small families for a few thousand years before H. Sapiens was pushed southward by the last Glacial Maximum, and either killed or outcompeted the things.


And also, I really do think that natural selection is itself the greatest evidence of an intelligence,I mean it would be just as easy to call it intelligent selection would it not, no, Im not convinced.

I see the theory of evolution as very good, but not definite, hmm, is there a third variable were not looking at, perhaps something to explain modern mans explosion onto the scene and his unusual evolutionary traits?


Unfortunately just because you do not understand something doesn't mean it's flawed. Humans didn't "Explode" onto the scene. Like any other animal, we have a definite family tree, lots of species (now all extinct save for ourselves and, if you like the woo-woo, perhaps yetis and sasquatch). There is clear development between those species and within our own. We don't really have many "unusual" evolutionary traits. In fact we're pretty much what you'd expect from a bipedal chimpanzee, two million years after leaving those cousins in the woods.




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Outlawstar
 



Your right it does leave more questions than answers, but is that any reason to rule it out, what scientific theory doesint?


Considering the amount of evidence *against* it, it is more reasonable to assume it isn't likely. I was simply stating that aliens from Tau Ceti is more probable than a supernatural deity.


Again careful with the presumptions, according to the sumerians Nibiru was in our own solar system, for all we know they werent as advanced(assuming they existed of course) as most sci-fi alien landings would have you believe.


We are at a level of technological ability to discover planets around other stars and yet never have we detected a tenth planet whose orbit comes close to that of Earth. Assuming that there is, any technologically advanced race from the planet capable of building interplanetary space craft would also posses the technological capability to easily mine whatever resources it required without having to resort to other technological advances such as genetic engineering in order to create a race of beings to mine primitively.


Oh now a short study of history will show you multiple advancements in technology that were almost as if not equivelentely progressive as anything in the last two hundred years.
Printing press springs to mind, the use of Arabic numerals in European countries ETC.


The printing press is hardly a technological advancement in my opinion nor is the usage of symbols.


Couldint agree more, to me this seems to be the more logical explanation, and until this seemingly obvious conclusion si fully reached by the mainstream, if only in the sense og ridding such notions of the stigma they have been purposely dogged with.


I doubt it is a 'logical conclusion' myself; But considering the sum of the three possibilities, it is the most probable. I doubt it is the most likely to have occurred in reality.


I mean the Olmecs for instance didint acquire their advanced mathematics from NOWHERE, whoever built the pyramids didint do so on a whim, shy did so many civilisations seem to pop out fo the woodwork, with their culture fully formed and then begin to decline, its contrary to what the average joe would consider history to depict.


By that logic, we are incapable of forming any new idea on our own. Who gave us algebra or rocketry or knowledge of DNA? These are vastly more complex in knowledge than moving a group of stones into a geometric shape.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outlawstar

I mean the Olmecs for instance didint acquire their advanced mathematics from NOWHERE, whoever built the pyramids didint do so on a whim, shy did so many civilisations seem to pop out fo the woodwork, with their culture fully formed and then begin to decline, its contrary to what the average joe would consider history to depict.

These are serious questions that have not been anywhere near adequately answered!^______^

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Outlawstar]


If there's one thing that annoys me more than science-denial, it's pseudohistory. Especially pseudohistory of the "brown people can't stack rocks" variety.

First, the Olmecs didn't have advanced mathematics. The Maya did - sort of. To believe that you have to believe that having the concept of zero makes mathematics advanced. Their counting system was also base twenty. So I suppose they were more advanced than the Romans were, at least. However the Maya didn't have anything like what we would consider advanced math - They used addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication, but nothing advances that can be compared to math like algebra, trigonometry, calculus, or the like.

So, yeah. The Maya; better at math than Rome, worse than Baghdad.

And why weren't the pyramids built on a whim? Have you ever seen the ludicrous crap that gets built on a whim nowadays? No reason that a society that thinks the king is literally god itself (under pain of torture and execution of course!) wouldn't be more than happy to fulfil his whimsical building designs. The way it works is that some ancient Egyptian kings had small step-pyramids built for themselves. Later kings kept building bigger, better pyramids, until we get the ones at Giza. Think of it as a royal afterlife version of penis-measuring.

What civilizations "pop out of the woodwork"? I can understand the illusion of such, and there's a very good reason - most archaeologically interesting sites tend to be on top of whatever came before. Mohenjo-Daro for instance, is almost certainly hte product of at least hundreds of years of people living on the Indus. However the city is inevitably built on top of whatever villages, towns, tribal meeting places and the like that came before - we would have to destroy the place in order to find out what it's sitting on.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I surely do believe in intelligent design. It is to the opposite to the theory of evolution.

A lot of people have their minds predetermined already and won't really look into all of the facts and information available. What I mean is to really dive into all the information on Intelligent design or on the other hand the Theory of evolution and design for yourself...

For any one who would like to find out more about Intelligent Design, I can recommend the website of Dr. Carl E. Baugh from Texas. Here is some information on Dr. Baugh from his site:
Background on Dr. Carl E. Baugh

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Carl Edward Baugh
Born: October 21, 1936
Father of 5 children, Stepfather of 2 children

Founder and Director of Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, Texas
Scientific Research Director for world’s first Hyperbaric Biosphere
Scientific Research Director for water reclamation and energized plant systems Discoverer and Excavation Director of fourteen dinosaurs, including Acrocanthosaurus in Texas and Diplodocus in Colorado
Co-discoverer and co-excavator of a unique South American ammonite that has not been described in the technical literature. He is preparing publication in the scientific literature, and has tentatively named the fossil Pendulaceras corrugatumlaqueus.
Degrees: Doctor of Theology (2005, Louisiana Baptist University)
Doctor of Philosophy in Education (1989, Pacific College of Graduate Studies)
Masters in Archaeology (1984, Pacific College of Graduate Studies)
Bachelor of Arts (1961, Burton College) Graduate of Theology (1959,
Baptist Bible College, Valedictorian)
High School Diploma (1955, Abilene High School, Honor Graduate)


Dr. Carl Baugh is quite a respected researcher in the line of research he has done in Archaeology.

(Continue in next part...)



[edit on 4-11-2009 by Louwey]

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Louwey]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Louwey
 


That's... from his website? Are you sure? You got that from the website of Carl. E. Bauwer?

...because the guy's name is Baugh. Carl Baugh. Not Bauwer, not Baum, Baugh.

And he's got a doctorate in Theology, which makes him about as qualified as a beauty school graduate to talk about science professionally.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
(part 2)
I found the following from Dr. Carl Baugh's for the people have not yet made up their mind. It is astonishing.

Before I went into all this, I found this information, I found this small bit about Sir Isaac Newton who got an accomplished artisan who fashioned for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton’s home.

Link to page about account here under

A Moment in History...
That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his.

Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton’s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table.

The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.

Newton’s atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship.

‘My! What an exquisite thing this is!’ he exclaimed. ‘Who made it?’ Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, ‘Nobody.’ Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this.

Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. ‘Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has.’ ‘You must think I am a fool!’ the visitor retorted heatedly, ‘Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is.’

Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?’

Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story (from the book: ‘The Truth: God or evolution?’ by Marshall and Sandra Hall, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)


Here is the theory of Dr. Carl A\E. Baugh:
Creation Model Session 1
Creation Model Session 2
Creation Model Session 3
Creation Model Session 4
Creation Model part 5
Creation Model part 6
Creation Model part 7
Creation Model part 8
Creation Model part 9
Creation Model part 10
Creation Model part 11


[edit on 4-11-2009 by Louwey]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Louwey
 


That's... from his website? Are you sure? You got that from the website of Carl. E. Bauwer?

...because the guy's name is Baugh. Carl Baugh. Not Bauwer, not Baum, Baugh.

And he's got a doctorate in Theology, which makes him about as qualified as a beauty school graduate to talk about science professionally.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]


You are dead right. Thanks for correcting me. You are right. It is Dr. Carl E. Baugh instead of what I wrote as Dr. Carl E. Bauwer.

Thanks!




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Louwey
 




Here is the theory of Dr. Carl Bauwer:
Creation Model Session 1
Creation Model Session 2
Creation Model Session 3
Creation Model Session 4
Creation Model part 5
Creation Model part 6
Creation Model part 7
Creation Model part 8
Creation Model part 9
Creation Model part 10
Creation Model part 11
Have look and say what you think?


All of it crap spouting.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Genesis 3...Satan asks Eve,"Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?",and Eve says it's just the tree in the middle they should not eat of,or they would surely die. Satan says:"You will not surely die! For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened,and you will be like God,knowing good and evil."

That was just the beginning!

His biggest lie is getting people to think he doesn't exist!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 



His biggest lie is getting people to think he doesn't exist!


Yet you quote a questionable example that has nothing to do with the above statement.


Genesis 3...Satan asks Eve,"Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?",and Eve says it's just the tree in the middle they should not eat of,or they would surely die. Satan says:"You will not surely die! For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened,and you will be like God,knowing good and evil."


Satan never told a lie here. God told us that we would surely die should we eat the fruit. Before this fruit was eaten, we lacked knowledge of good and evil. Satan informed us that we would not die, but instead now gain knowledge of good and evil. We ate of the fruit and we did not die, we were cast out of the garden for going against God's command lest we also eat from the tree of life obtaining immortality as well, becoming like God.

If you can show that we died, then I see no evidence that Satan told a lie here. Perhaps you have a better verse?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 


So I'm curious about this story.

After god finds out what happens, he commands the serpent to eat only dust and crawl on his belly, and states that the children of Eve will forever crush the heads of serpents beneath their feet, right?


And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel


Right.

Okay so... You say that this serpent is Satan, right? Well alright so then, the question is...

Are all snakes Satan, or did Satan just take on the shape of a snake? if it's the latter, why did god punish all snakes for what Satan did?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


People who love the Lord and follow Him know perfectly well what is meant by that verse.

You would rather bring glory to Satan.Whether you think he's fictional or not,you are serving Him



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by On the Edge
reply to post by sirnex
 


People who love the Lord and follow Him know perfectly well what is meant by that verse.

You would rather bring glory to Satan.Whether you think he's fictional or not,you are serving Him


In other words, you have no real rebuttal to what I had just said.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Good question. I really don't know. Just as we can't fully understand the mind of God. But He has told us what we need to know.

I know y'all are looking for some lofty.intellectual answers. It's probably infuriating to you that someone can have "childlike faith" and be content with that. I believe Satan's presence is very real,and very bad,and he and his demons may take many forms.
I've been on both sides of the fence,so to speak.I know the difference each has had on my life.

I think part of what that scripture warns about is trying to be like gods ourselves. And being spiritually "fallen" is a form of death itself,and results in seperation from God.
I'm no scholar on this subject,but I believe God has shown me what I need to know to serve Him. I don't think my words will be enough to convince you,because you probably don't want to believe in Him in the first place.
Being "Born again" involves a personal relationship with Jesus Christ,accepting the gift of salvation through faith,by grace. It's very simple really,but people want to make it way more complicated than it is.
Sometimes I choose to see certain things in Black or White.

Satan=Bad
God=Good

Sorry to dissapoint you!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


More likely he doesn't even know his own scriptures. It's a perennial problem among the religious goofies, you know. They can quote, but htye never have any understanding of what they're quoting.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Why are you quoting the Bible and defending Satan,if it's all just "fiction" as you say?

You said,"Satan never told a lie here."...



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by On the Edge
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Good question. I really don't know. Just as we can't fully understand the mind of God. But He has told us what we need to know.


Well, on the face of it, what we can see of the "mind of god" from the bible points constantly towards him being a real dick. I mean that whole story about Adam and eve and the tree... Total dick.

"I'm an omnipotent omniscient being, so I'm going to make a tree, tell people not to eat from it, have my servant coerce them into eating it anyway, then punish all three of them, after pretending to be surprised, WAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, me, i'm such a jackass. Now where are those pillows i need to smite?"


Sorry to dissapoint you!


it was expected.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by sirnex
 


More likely he doesn't even know his own scriptures. It's a perennial problem among the religious goofies, you know. They can quote, but htye never have any understanding of what they're quoting.


Considering the nature of his last response to you, I would certainly agree.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



Well, on the face of it, what we can see of the "mind of god" from the bible points constantly towards him being a real dick. I mean that whole story about Adam and eve and the tree... Total dick.


I agree! He tells a lie, saying that we would die and then turns around and punishes everyone for his own lie. Complete utter dickery right there in it's purest form! Then we have to deal with the abused wives who still love their abusive husband and just make excuses for his atrocities.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Science is Neutral. Science is specific to what it is describing, and that is the material world. At least it should be. Intelligent design is not, that is why people say it is not science.
People are trying to use science to prove or disprove God. This is not scientific neutrality.

People on both sides of the debate are inferring a great number of things from the complexity of life that we observe. One of them is Evolution and the other is I.D.
Evolution is a description by science, or at least an attempt at describing the process by which life became so abundant and complex.
I.D. is a description by theists to account for the creation of the processes of what science has described as evolution.
I.D. is not science.
I.D. has the answer already.
Science is merely describing the details of that answer.
Science does not jump to the conclusion although it is unafraid to point out patterns. That patterns appears to be Evolution. Science admits that in the absence of total knowledge, another answer is possible and cannot be ruled out.
In regard to the later, I.D. is especially not scientific.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join