Scientific proof of intelligent design? Prove me wrong, please

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I thought it was, sorry then.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I thought it was, sorry then.


I was agreeing with you and expanding your argument



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





But it does impact the design argument, because there's no valid reason for it from a design point of view.


This is completely wrong Rhino. There is no valid reason for it, from a scientific point of view. From a design point of view I can think of one reason. A design point of view involves a Creator if I'm not mistaken ? Cut to the chase, I believe SIN somehow mysteriously is at the heart of all degeneracy. Maybe it's more fitting that you hear that coming from me instead of Squiz.

reply to post by Dispo
 




Your education and experiences do not make your points valid.


Misnomer ! ( this applies to everyone in existence ) Moot point. INVALID !
edit on 24-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by windlass34
 


I thought that one of the best things that proves intelligence was a theory I came up with. I promise I came up with this and its not someone elses work, even though I get asked that a lot.

Anyhow, its called Target Food.

From looking at any number of various diets amongst different species, there is a pattern that emerges. This pattern seems to point in the direction that there is a specific food that the species is looking for. Thus the name Target Food. Now on a very rare occasion you can locate a species that survives fully on one food. Rght now the abalone and macroalge or kelp.

The kicker here is that someone had to of programmed all species to have this drive to not only know what the target food is, but also know what its not. The reason I state that is because there is NEVER an experimental stage listed in any diet, unless the species is starving, but more importantly experimentation is NEVER the first thing that happens when Target Food or secondary food is available.

Most species here on earth don't have Target Food, so what happens is you start to see a pattern emerge for back up food. A good diet for example is the squirrel diet...


Feeding
Squirrel eating a peanut
The Indian palm squirrel is the most common type of squirrel found in India.Squirrels cannot digest cellulose, so must rely on foods rich in protein, carbohydrates, and fats. In temperate regions, early spring is the hardest time of year for squirrels, because buried nuts begin to sprout and are no longer available for the squirrel to eat, and new food sources have not become available yet. During these times, squirrels rely heavily on the buds of trees. Squirrels' diets consist primarily of a wide variety of plants, including nuts, seeds, conifer cones, fruits, fungi and green vegetation. However, some squirrels also consume meat, especially when faced with hunger.[6] Squirrels have been known to eat insects, eggs, small birds, young snakes and smaller rodents. Indeed, some tropical species have shifted almost entirely to a diet of insects.

squirrel wiki

As you can see the squirrel has a wide range diet to the point that he is referred to as an herbivore. Anytime you see a species eating a wide range of product in a group like that, they are in what we will call phase one of hunger. Because this guy loses those main items out of season, he picks up an additional group, we will call this phase 2 of hunger. Now phase 3 would be eating rocks and dirt or poo, total starvation. You have to also realize these rules never apply to domesticated animals as we predict what they can and can't eat.

From what I'm able to figure out, there would be no more than a total of 3 foods to make up a total list of food for a species, but it could possibly be just one in target. If the food is a supplement then it can't be a target food. For example I feed my parakeets a mixed mash of seed but they would probably eat differently in the wild, however just because they eat a certain way in the wild does not mean they are eating their Target Food.

Target food is identified not soley by the species only eating that food, but also by the food being the instinctive choice. Where evolutionists get lost is in this next part. All of those in a species are choosing the same food, the first time, providing they all have the same food available in the area they occupy. So not only do they know what not to eat, but they seem to know what to go after as food, and there appears to be some type of motivational drive in the selection that is made because they all make the same choice. Call it instinct, but what I'm saying is somone had to of programmed that instinct in them. There is no way it could be done without first knowing that the Target food is avaiable.

The reason we have things in the mess that they are in, is because like it states in the bible, everything was brought here, all the plants, the herbs and the animals. The problem is that you can't do that. It's causes an imballance in the life on the planet, and it would be the same if someone simply took one or more out of the picture. This is why we are in the 6th largest mass extinction right now, and scientists are baffled at the loss because they are first making the wrong assumption that all this life is from here and that it belongs here.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by windlass34
 


So you might wonder where this leaves humans.

Well also like it states in the bible, earth is not our home and none of the things from our home was brought here. Which means none of the food we eat was intended for us. So all of the food we eat is phase one and phase two food. No wonder we have so many problems with food and we have even gone to the extent of making our own food.

We don't even have a good source for calcium here on earth. Milk is by far the best, but fruits and veggies just don't add up. You need 1000mg per day and thats if you not a teen and not pregnant. The best natural source is Sardines but you will need 5.4 servings a day or 16oz of sardines to meet your needs.

First off cows milk was NOT inended for human consumption. Some people don't like to hear that but its the honest truth. We have to process the hell out of it just to make it safe for consumption. You will still need about 3-4 servings of milk a day and processed cheese gets better. Perhaps the most shocking is seaweed at about 7-14 times better than milk but it too has to be processed.

The reason why all of this is such a big deal is because anytime a species doesn't have access to its target food, then that species will go through a reduction in the quality of life. Because the food is not ideal for that species he wont be in the best health, and he will always have to work harder to obtain that phase food where his Target Food would have been easier for him. So its a loss in a major way.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs


Your education and experiences do not make your points valid.


Misnomer ! ( this applies to everyone in existence ) Moot point. INVALID


That's the exact point I was making. If you read the second line of my post, you see that I say "your education and experiences allow you to make valid points."

In a hypothetical scenario, would you take survival advice from someone who told you to eat your own faeces for sustenance, who had a PhD in supersurvival and had been on several survival excursions, or would you take the advice from the "uneducated" survivalist who said "eat those berries, but not those ones"?

The point I'm making is, having qualifications does not make you right.

Equally, not having qualifications does not make you wrong.

You can make perfectly valid points on a subject without academic training.

You can make very stupid points on a subject with academic training.

Basically, I'm trying to say, don't wave someone's credentials around as if they automatically win the argument for you, whichever side you're on. There's always someone bigger and badder out there with more letters after his or her name than any source you (anyone) can come up with.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


I like to say it like this. Just because I don't know what I'm doing. Doesn't mean I'm not doing it right.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I thought that one of the best things that proves intelligence was a theory I came up with. I promise I came up with this and its not someone elses work, even though I get asked that a lot.

Anyhow, its called Target Food.
I think everyone is aware it is a fantasy only you could come up with, have no proof for and claim it proves something you dont understand.


Well also like it states in the bible, earth is not our home and none of the things from our home was brought here.
Well something is wrong here. In another thread you claimed the bible says everything was brought here

Which is it?

edit on 25-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I think everyone is aware it is a fantasy only you could come up with, have no proof for and claim it proves something you dont understand.
Then put your money where your mouth is, and explain where the driven instinct comes from.




Well something is wrong here. In another thread you claimed the bible says everything was brought here

Which is it?
It was. Your obviously confusing earth with being our home, duh.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by fuzzy0087
Your argument assumes that we understand everything there is to understand about the universe. Science is proven wrong on a regular basis depending on the claim or theory. This will continue until the end of existence.


Reminds me of a discussion with a friend of mine a while back where he made the remark, "We now know the laws of physics apply throughout the Universe". This from a man who proudly calls himself a skeptic. I suggested he should probably state it, "The laws of physics appear to apply throughout the Universe".

It isn't my field and I may be over-simplifying, but suppose (since we're talking about amazingly long distances) someday we find that the majority of assumptions we've made are similar to not knowing you are viewing the world from inside a greenhouse. The state of our local physics (however large local is) may set up a situation that filters out anything that doesn't fit our expected results.

When I was still actively employed in IT, I always told our customers that, if they ran into someone claiming to have all the answers, they should run like Hell the other way because they were talking to either a liar or a fool. (Definitely not intended to apply to anyone here)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Just because you don't know or understand something does not mean it is evidence of intelligent design. Science has been improving and refining their theories. sometimes even proving themselves wrong and starting from scratch again. The laws of the universe are subject to change based on our understanding of them.

my 0.02
edit on 1/25/2013 by ugie1028 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by Dispo
 


well im no scientists and have not read much on the subject, but i have read a little.

it seems to me that dna is code and can be manipulated by outside sources, just as binary is a code and can be manipulated by outside sources, coincidence?



I really have no idea on the garbage I'm about to spew, but I still want to throw it out there for your consideration. We think of DNA as having an intelligently designed code, but aren't there specific codes for other things, too? Rocks? Water? Heat?
I mean, a quartz rock couldn't be made any other way than the way it is made, right? We can't make water out of anything but hydrogen and oxygen. Can we get heat out of an ice cube?

It just seems we're hung up on DNA code when we know how everything else in the universe was created naturally, but with very specific instructions.

Am I too far off the mark here?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
Just because you don't know or understand something does not mean it is evidence of intelligent design. Science have been improving and refining their theories. sometimes even proving themselves wrong and starting from scratch again. The laws of the universe are subject to change based on our understanding of them.

my 0.02


I would think medicine a good example of how we've tweaked what we've learned along the way but admit there is still work to to.

If someone firmly believes in Intelligent Design, I'm not going to invest a lot of effort in trying to burst their bubble. There is the possibility they may someday be proven right. Teaching a school course, though, cracks me up. After the first fifteen minutes, what's left to talk about?
edit on 25-1-2013 by CornShucker because: dropped word



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It was. Your obviously confusing earth with being our home, duh.
No confusion here. You are promoting a blatent lie. Expect to hear more.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





No confusion here. You are promoting a blatent lie. Expect to hear more.
Your opinion is greatly appreciated, did you have some proof.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The earth is not a closed system.

The sun provides constant energy to the surface of the earth.


reply to post by winofiend
 



why the likelihood of god is pretty small


Oh?

Why is that?

Care to explain?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Your opinion is greatly appreciated, did you have some proof.

You continue to conflate the concepts of "proof" and "evidence". Do you understand that they are two different things and that only one is relevant to scientific inquiry?

Hint: The one relevant to scientific inquiry is not "proof". I'm sure even you can puzzle out which one of the two it is given this clue.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





You continue to conflate the concepts of "proof" and "evidence". Do you understand that they are two different things and that only one is relevant to scientific inquiry?

Hint: The one relevant to scientific inquiry is not "proof". I'm sure even you can puzzle out which one of the two it is given this clue.



proof
/pro͞of/Noun
Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.


Adjective
Able to withstand something damaging; resistant.


Verb
Make (fabric) waterproof: "the tent is made from proofed nylon".


Synonyms
noun. evidence - test - trial - demonstration - testimony
adjective. impermeable
verb. waterproof


proof google definition

According to the google definition , they are the same thing.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Er ....... you have a post to answer on the other thread that you appear to be avoiding so before you try to turn another thread on this subject into a farce come finish what you started there.

This Post

edit on 27-1-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

It is not surprising that you are not grasping the difference between the colloquial definition of words and how those same words can apply to different concepts in science. The concept of proof is irrelevant to science. Someone with the scientific credentials you claim to have should know that nothing in science is ever "proven".


Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

-- S. Kanazawa, Psychology Today





top topics
 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join