Intelligent Design is Dead

reply to post by Barcs

Your replies indicate that you haven't investigated ID, even if you claim you have. You're still associating it with religious books while it has nothing to do with those. It also does not make any claim regarding the earth being designed, it's particularly regarding life. ID does not claim a young earth. All your arguments are baseless assertions, assuming what you can easily "refute" without knowing anything about the subject.

And I will not answer any questions. Like I said before, I will only point out flaws in arguments. If you want to know, go look yourself. I'm tired of giving answers that are being ignored or ridiculed for no apparent reason, other than dogmatic positions. So many people have been brainwashed that no matter what evidence they see, they will deny it anyway. So, people can go look for themselves, and if they don't like it, tough luck. If you don't want to look it shows you already lack interest and already rejected the idea without investigating, and I will not be the doormat of dogma.

And in case you're wondering what my question was that wasn't answered, here you go:

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by sinthia

 

And thus starts the same argument that has been held on here time and time again in numerous different threads. Here's your evidence.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Great quote from there that I think really nails it:

Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.

I find it extremely funny, how abiogenesis is seen as a separate hypothesis, and yet, there is this kind of great urge for evolutionists to bash and fiercely reject intelligent design and creationism, while those address the issue of how life started, and evolution does not according to your own views because it assumes life was already there.. Anyone care to explain & justify this hypocrisy?

edit on 23-12-2011 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

reply to post by vasaga


You really need to watch this



Simple chemistry is wonderfull

reply to post by BagBing

From description:

Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start.

"It happened because it could have happened! And everyone else is wrong".. i.e. Logical fallacy called appeal to probability.

And abiogenesis is basically spontaneous generation spread over time. So much for calling stuff outdated. That video is a joke and clearly has an agenda behind it. Especially when in the description it says "Don't be fooled by creationist arguments". Plus, it's simply another one mixing ID with creationism, so, another person who doesn't know the difference..

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Barcs

 

Your replies indicate that you haven't investigated ID, even if you claim you have. You're still associating it with religious books while it has nothing to do with those. It also does not make any claim regarding the earth being designed, it's particularly regarding life. ID does not claim a young earth. All your arguments are baseless assertions, assuming what you can easily "refute" without knowing anything about the subject.

Then school me on it. Please post what it DOES say and the science behind it. You keep talking about what it isn't. I've heard all the arguments, believe me. It doesn't matter what group puts them out there. Post some data for me, please.

And I will not answer any questions. Like I said before, I will only point out flaws in arguments. If you want to know, go look yourself. I'm tired of giving answers that are being ignored or ridiculed for no apparent reason, other than dogmatic positions. So many people have been brainwashed that no matter what evidence they see, they will deny it anyway. So, people can go look for themselves, and if they don't like it, tough luck. If you don't want to look it shows you already lack interest and already rejected the idea without investigating, and I will not be the doormat of dogma.

"No, I will not address your counterpoints or provide evidence to back up my claims! You will assume they are correct since you can look it up yourself". Too bad you fail at even pointing out flaws in arguments as well. Anything else I should be aware of? Typical cop out response when confronted about the evidence. Nobody has yet posted any credible evidence for ID in ANY related thread. You're quick to tell me what the theory isn't about. Please enlighten me, or stop trolling.

I find it extremely funny, how abiogenesis is seen as a separate hypothesis, and yet, there is this kind of great urge for evolutionists to bash and fiercely reject intelligent design and creationism, while those address the issue of how life started, and evolution does not according to your own views because it assumes life was already there.. Anyone care to explain & justify this hypocrisy?

People aren't bashing or fiercely rejecting ID and creationism. They are saying it's based on faith and not science, because its followers are making posts and threads in this section claiming that it is. Why is this so difficult to understand? Where is the scientific intelligent design theory? I'm still waiting for it. I know you won't dare provide evidence, but you'll be quick to quote mine me and pick something you don't like.

At least abiogensis has mathematics to explain it and experiments associated. That's far more than ID has going.

reply to post by Barcs

What people say is irrelevant to what something actually is. Is math suddenly wrong because everyone does it wrong? Of course not. The same applies to stuff like ID, and everything else. People can obviously be wrong, and just because creationists support ID does not mean that ID is creationism.

I'm not the one that's trolling here... Go look in the mirror. And if you want evidence, go read the books "signature in the cell" and "signature of controversy". But of course you won't because you're too busy ridiculing and supporting denialism.

For other people who are actually interested in investigating instead of repetition:
In Defense of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and Intelligent Design

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by Barcs

 

What people say is irrelevant to what something actually is. Is math suddenly wrong because everyone does it wrong? Of course not. The same applies to stuff like ID, and everything else. People can obviously be wrong, and just because creationists support ID does not mean that ID is creationism.

I don't recall ever saying that. I said that I've heard the arguments from BOTH creationists and ID advocates. They both don't use real science, and many of their claims are nearly identical.

I'm not the one that's trolling here... Go look in the mirror. And if you want evidence, go read the books "signature in the cell" and "signature of controversy". But of course you won't because you're too busy ridiculing and supporting denialism.

Let's see. "Signature in the cell" and "Signature of Controversy" both written by Stephen Meyer, who founded Discovery Institute and Center for Science and Culture, the very same organizations that parrot pseudo science as a real scientific alternative to evolution to be taught in schools. I've debunked tons of their claims in the past. Care to bring one up that you are certain holds scientific weight? Not a single ID claim can be backed with legitimate science. The movement is dead, which is why Ben Stein's movie failed. Expelled is one giant strawman, describing some mysterious thing called Darwinism, which does not exist. If you are aware of something I don't know, that shows scientific evidence that life or anything else was intelligently designed, then by all means, enlighten me. I'm trying to expand my knowledge.

Now Darwinism doesn't exist.. Haha.. Well then.. Wikipedia disagrees

And still repeating the same stuff again.. Good luck with that. And for the ones who are actually interested in both sides of the story.. If you can't see the deception after this, you truly are lost:

Originally posted by vasaga
Now Darwinism doesn't exist.. Haha.. Well then.. Wikipedia disagrees

And still repeating the same stuff again.. Good luck with that. And for the ones who are actually interested in both sides of the story.. If you can't see the deception after this, you truly are lost:

For a slight commentary on your video you posted, I have this; To the extent for which the scientific community will go to persecute dissenting scientists and ideas, shows the obvious bias and fraudulence of this very powerful "gang" of academic deciders. I find it hilarious they were caught, but they will no doubt be more discreet the next time something like this happens. With hoaxes and the silencing of scientists, the people in these very powerful positions are showing a very immoral foundation, they are so good at conning they cause the layman to believe what they are hearing is the truth. It is very hard to reverse indoctrination.

reply to post by vasaga


It is very refreshing to read comments from a poster with critical thinking skills, rather than verbatim copying of ideas from extremely biased sources.

^Yeah, totally. It really takes a lot of critical thinking to believe your hypothesis is fact and instantly dismiss or ignore anything that contradicts it.

Originally posted by vasaga
Now Darwinism doesn't exist.. Haha.. Well then.. Wikipedia disagrees

Did you even read your own link? That term is from 1860, and doesn't apply to modern day evolution in the least. This is why Expelled is a strawman, it's based on a false concept and arguments are made against THAT, rather than modern day evolutionary science. I'd love to see Ben Stein pick modern day biology apart, because without evolution, none of it makes sense. That would be comical. Please stop quote mining me.

Oh boy nonsense about Meyer and his article that got rejected after being MISTAKENLY published in a peer reviewed journal. Go read the wiki on that. Every scientist that worked with the journal admitted it was not science and that it didn't qualify for the journal. The editor was discredited for publishing it. You can claim its some mega conspiracy if you'd like, but Meyer's claims can't actually be backed up by legitimate science, hence why everyone spoke out about it. His claims about people harassing him are merely claims. He was obviously butthurt about how many legitimate scientists spoke out and crapped all over his speculation.



Watch this.

It should also be noted that amazon lists "Signature in the Cell" in

Books › Christian Books & Bibles › Theology

It's not a science book. Meyer is not a scientist. He did not perform any experiments to back up his idea. He threw a bunch of science around and then speculated about how it means we were designed. You can post all the facts in the world, but it doesn't make the wild guess thrown in the mix suddenly more viable.

What you have posted is all definitive evidence that ID is dead. ONE paper was MISTAKENLY published in a science journal, and the mistake was acknowledged. Not a single thing has happened since with ID to move it beyond the hypothesis stage, and that paper was 7-8 years ago.

reply to post by Barcs


You speak about evolution as if the whole theory is solid all the way through. There are weaknesses in the theory; Cambrian Explosion, organisms staying the same through very long eras of time, selective breeding of certain animals with no new species emerging or any significant change in the animals, and circular arguments are a few of the weaknesses.

By circular arguments, I'm referring to arguments such as, common descent. Biologists will say common genes between species is proof of common descent, as if it's already been settled. Or you'll get a Biologist saying homologous structures are proof of evolution, but they are actually assuming evolution first. There are other options.

reply to post by addygrace


what are the other options that answer the questions that evoultion does not?

And do you have any evidence for it?

Originally posted by addygrace
reply to post by Barcs

 

You speak about evolution as if the whole theory is solid all the way through. There are weaknesses in the theory; Cambrian Explosion, organisms staying the same through very long eras of time, selective breeding of certain animals with no new species emerging or any significant change in the animals, and circular arguments are a few of the weaknesses.

The theory is VERY solid. People forget that drastic environmental changes do happen, and those accelerate evolution

Tons of evidence for macro evolution

This is the famous link that every creationist or ID advocate ignores when I post it.

By circular arguments, I'm referring to arguments such as, common descent. Biologists will say common genes between species is proof of common descent, as if it's already been settled. Or you'll get a Biologist saying homologous structures are proof of evolution, but they are actually assuming evolution first. There are other options

There's way more evidence than common genes. Read the link above, unless of course you have a better theory that has evidence to support it. It has been settled. It has been observed in nature and in a lab.

reply to post by Wertdagf


What does the evolution paradigm answer that ID does not? Objectively thinking about a designer, whether it be personal or not should not be taboo.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by addygrace

 

what are the other options that answer the questions that evoultion does not?

And do you have any evidence for it?

What is the evidence for evolution, that doesn't point to a design/designer as well?

Originally posted by Barcs
Not a single thing has happened since with ID to move it beyond the hypothesis stage, and that paper was 7-8 years ago.

Axe DD (2010a) The limits of complex adaptation: An analysis based on a simple model of structured bacterial populations. BIO-Complexity 1, Issue 4, 1-10.

Axe DD (2010b) The case against a Darwinian origin of protein folds. BIO-Complexity 1, Issue 1, 1-12.

Gauger A and DD Axe (2011) The evolutionary accessibility of new enzyme functions: A case study from the biotin pathway. BIO-Complexity 2, Issue1, 1-17.

Michael J. Behe & David W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, Vol 13:2651-2664 (2004).

(Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and 'The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution'," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010)

Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines. DDPE Pp. 287-302

Gauger AK, Ebnet S, Fahey PF and R Seelke (2010) Reductive evolution can presevent populations from taking simple adaptive paths to high fitness. BIO-Complexity 1, Issue 2, 1-9.

“Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution” (Durrett, R & Schmidt, D. 2008. Genetics 180: 1501-1509).

Michael Lynch, “The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 104:8597–8604 (May 15, 2007).

Austin L. Hughes, "Looking for Darwin in all the wrong places: the misguided quest for positive selection at the nucleotide sequence level," Heredity, Vol. 99:364–373 (2007).

Jerry Coyne, "The Great Mutator," The New Republic (June 14, 2007).

Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt, “Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution,” Genetics, Vol. 180: 1501–1509 (November 2008).

Michael Lynch, “The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 104:8597–8604 (May 15, 2007).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "Bernoulli's Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search," Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. San Antonio, TX, USA - October 2009, pp. 2647-2652

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success" IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, vol.5, #5, September 2009, pp.1051-1061

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "LIFE'S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information" in Bruce Gordon and William Dembski, editors, THE NATURE OF NATURE (Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2009).

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search," Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol.14, No.5, 2010, pp. 475-486.

Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, DDPE, Pp. 403-418.

Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II, "Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle," Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, IEEE, University of Texas at Tyler, March 7-9, 2010, pp.290-297.

Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism," Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. San Antonio, TX, USA - October 2009, pp. 3047-3053

Montañez G, Ewert W, Dembski WA, Marks II RJ (2010) A vivisection of the ev computer organism: Identifying sources of active information. BIO-Complexity 2010(3):1-6. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2010.3

Stephen Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239.

Meyer, S. C., Ross, M., Nelson, P. & P. Chien, The Cambrian explosion: biology's big bang, DDPE, Pp. 323-402.

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.

Jonathan Wells, "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Whoops I've run out of space for this list and there are many many more. ID is dead hey? Hasn't done anything since? If it's dead why are people still trying to kill it? Biggest case of denial I have ever seen I think. Denial and to put it simply LIES.

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by addygrace

 

what are the other options that answer the questions that evoultion does not?

And do you have any evidence for it?

What is the evidence for evolution, that doesn't point to a design/designer as well?

Originally posted by Barcs
Tons of evidence for macro evolution

This is the famous link that every creationist or ID advocate ignores when I post it.

Stop ignoring it.

There is no actual science that supports ID.

Originally posted by squiz
Whoops I've run out of space for this list and there are many many more. ID is dead hey? Hasn't done anything since? If it's dead why are people still trying to kill it?

Biggest case of denial I have ever seen I think. Denial and to put it simply LIES.

Whoops, you completely ignored my source and every other point I made. Oops. Every source you have cited is theology and hasn't been peer reviewed. Whoops, you didn't provide a single link. Please link me to the actual science experiments and peer reviewed journals. Whoops, you failed. I'm not about to go buy 20 creationist books just to find out they are complete guesswork. Citing meyer is a joke. None of those have gained any credibility in the scientific community because YOU CAN'T TEST INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN AN EXPERIMENT. You can only guess about complexity and probability, but there aren't enough factors to actually make an educated guess on it.

A bunch of theology books is not scientific progress.

reply to post by Barcs


More lies, they are peer reviewed, they do not concern theology. Look the links up yourself. You won't read them. You pass judgement on a paper you've never read, you pass judgement on book you never read. You have provided no evidence. I have shown experiments in the other thread. You ignore evidence to the contrary even from those outside of the ID movement. I'm still waiting for proof of complex protein folds occuring through random mutation and natural selection. But that seems too much to ask.
Yes I think your posts reveal alot about this whole debate.

reply to post by Barcs
All science points to ID. You say all life, except for the first life, is the product of evolution. I say all life is the product of an intelligent designer. I say he's personal, and the bible says...well I'll just post the verse.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.